White Evangelicals for Torture

Ouch. That hurts.

What do these statistics say about Americans in general and white American evangelicals in particular? Why would white evangelicals be most likely to support torture? Could some conventional theological assumptions of evangelicals have anything to do with it?

Those are some loaded and very tough questions. I don't even know where to start. But as a white evangelical myself, I'm not sure I would blame it exclusively on any theological assumptions... maybe a better way to put it would be that white evangelicals tend to be "civilly religious," and that being an American and being a Christian often get intermixed to the point that the ideologies get mixed up with each other. In short, what's good for America is good for America regardless, because America is God's country.

Or maybe I'm wrong.

I think white evangelicals are afraid. We want peace and security, but loving our enemies and turning the other cheek doesn't bring results fast enough for us-- so some are willing to sacrifice our moral code to "serve the greater good." Of course, "the greater good" is often what's best for white, evangelical Americans. We need to look beyond nationalism and remember the compassion Jesus taught us to have for one another. -- Jenna at www.doubled-and-squared.com

Actually, I think that the explanation is much simpler than either you or Brother McLaren have posited. Far too many of us have ceded our thinking to politicians, media, and religious leaders. For example, if a Democratic president had been in office during the past 8 years, and the torturing had been initiated by men appointed by them, then I suspect that the loudest voices protesting against the abuse would be coming from Republicans and white evangelicals.

All of us - evangelicals, Democrats, Republicans, Independents, whatever - need to think through the positions that we have staked out. If we cannot personally reconcile our beliefs without the aid of Rush Limbaugh, James Dobson, Jim Wallis, et al, then we should be able to objectively evaluate public policy issues in the context of our upbringing, our religious faith, and our education. I lived through our involvement in Vietnam and changed from being fully supportive of our role there to being totally against the war. LBJ was a Democrat, but he should not have gotten us involved there. Those of us who supported Barrack Obama need to hold him accountable. Both he and John McCain said that torture is wrong and we should never go down that path again.

Interesting article - I however cannot concur with the conclusions that Brian McLaren bring forward. Brian says : "Why would white evangelicals be most likely to support torture? Could some conventional theological assumptions of evangelicals have anything to do with it?"

I am not sure which theological assumption Brian is referring to. All I would say to Brian, as a European white evangelical christian (where a vast majority of white evangelicals are against torture), is the theological assumption you are pointing to, is most probably shared by most white evangelicals in Europe.

So this explanation, is absolutely not valid.

I recently broached the subject to a friend of mine. I was complaining of the very thing that the poll Brian cites told me: too many American Christians were willing to accept torture, for whatever reason.

After asking rhetorically, "Who would Jesus torture?" my friend replied that it ought to be a no-brainer. Of course Christians shouldn't accept torture. After all Jesus, who himself suffered the worst kind of torture for our sakes, would never side with the torturers.

I like your questions? Do you want a dialogue?

I frankly don't have a clue what 1.6 billion Muslims (spread through the nations and cultures of the Earth and dominant in 40 countries) think. It borders on silliness even for George Bush or a broad Gallup study to pretend to summarize such a topic. It is like summarizing what people think.

I welcome and need the challenge to always pause and think about what is informing my views and attitudes. Might you be at all hasty in concluding what I think and why I think what I do?

The torture question is not posed in a vacuum. It occurs within a particular ethical-political debate about particular modes of interrogation in particular circumstances. Given the very politicized, vocal, and charged environment I think the similarities in the survey results are quite striking.

15% of the population believes torture can often be justified against suspected terrorists. With White Catholics that jumps to 19%. White Evangelicals are at 18%. And White Mainline at 15%.

I find it interesting that Pew defines religious groups along racial lines. To me it looks like they are measuring the views of sub-cultures within the society--defining them partially on religious identification. And I think that is the basic response to Mr. McLaren as to why 2% more White Evangelicals than White Mainline Protestants believe torture can often be justified to obtain important information.

Interestingly, their results show a dramatic drop in the strength of Republican support for torture--and an increase in Democrats (this is from February to April).

First, I find this somewhat inconceivable giving me some pause as to the validity of this whole survey enterprise. Second, the ongoing shift of views is strong evidence of my point that this question is heard within the bounds of a current political debate.

There has been a long debate about whether the interrogation techniques the US employed 2002-05 constituted torture. Right or wrong, if a person being interviewed believes the techniques were not torture, and an interviewer asks them whether they believe torture can be justified--then the respondent is immediately backed into a corner. The wording of the question presumes an answer to the public debate. The respondent immediately views their response in terms of taking sides in a public debate. If the respondent feels the interviewer has already taken sides then the interviewer has essentially created an argument instead of an interview.

Results simply become very weak when this kind of questioning is used.

Interesting perspective:

Written by a housewife in New Brunswick, Canada to her local newspaper.

'Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001 and have continually threatened to do so since? Were people from all over the world, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from the Nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania? Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?

And I'm supposed to care that a few Taliban were claiming to be tortured by a justice system of the nation they come from and are fighting against in a brutal insurgency. I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Bible, the mere belief of which is a crime punishable by beheading in Afghanistan.

I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for hacking off Nick Berg's head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.

I'll care when the cowardly so-called 'insurgents' in Afghanistan come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in Mosques.

I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of Nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.

I'll care when the media stops pretending that their freedom of speech on stories is more important than the lives of the soldiers and Marines on the ground or their families waiting a home to hear about them when something happens.

In the meantime, when I hear a story about a Marine or soldier roughing up an insurgent terrorist to obtain information, know this:

I don't care.

When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank.

I don't care.

When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed 'special' food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being 'mishandled,' you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts:

I don't care.

And oh, by the way, I've noticed that sometimes it's spelled 'Koran' and other times 'Quran.' Well, Jimmy Crack Corn you guessed it,

I don't care!!

If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to all your E-mail friends sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behaviour!

If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button. Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our Country!And may I add:

'Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the Soldiers and Marines don't have that problem.'

I have another quote that I would like to add, AND.......I hope you forward all this.

One last thought for the day:

Only five defining forces have ever offered to die for you:

1. Jesus Christ

2. The Canadian soldier.

3. The British soldier.

4. The US Marine or soldier, and

5. The Australian soldier

One died for your soul, the other 4 for your freedom.

YOU MIGHT WANT TO PASS THIS ON, AS MANY SEEM TO FORGET ALL OF THEM.

After doing almost no reasearch about this study at all, I found out something interesting. From CNN:

The analysis is based on a Pew Research Center survey of 742 American adults conducted April 14-21. It did not include analysis of groups other than white evangelicals, white non-Hispanic Catholics, white mainline Protestants and the religiously unaffiliated, because the sample size was too small.

So, Mr. McLaren and God's Politics Blog posters, can any of us say with any integrity that a sample size of 742 white men produces an accurate, complete picture? The study's results are completely undermined by that fact alone. It's worthless. It's garbage. It tells us nothing.

I mean, I didn't think to do any research initially myself, so I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything, but this is a pretty well-known blog, and McLaren is a well-known figure. Didn't anyone think to check the numbers before publishing something like this to the web?

"interesting" in what way?

Wow, I stand in utter awe of Christ-like attitude displayed by the writer of that article.

Sitting in a high rise builiding in Manhattan right now (where the attack took place), I am in utter gratitude that a person who lives in a place that probably would not even remotely be targeted would be so willing to up the ante for me sitting here. Thanks.

Eric - To make an absolute commitment to never, under any
circumstances, do what our intelligence services were allowed to do
after having cleared it with the Justice Department and the
Intelligence Oversight Committee (including Nancy Pelosi, even though
evidently she, for some reason, never felt inclined to voice her
disapproval) is irresponsible. This is an evil world and everything,
and every circumstance, isn't just nice. We need to wake up. All of
the people who were subjected to what we did are alive. Some of our
people are missing their heads. I'm not for brutal interrogation, but
if my little girl were abducted and I didn't know what was happening
to her or where she was, and I actually knew someone who knew where
she was and got ahold of that person, maybe things that normally I
would be against might come into play to rescue my daughter. The point
being, that there are unique circumstances and this current liberal
administration and congress is putting our country at risk. We need to
wake up.

Read my other response. This is an evil world, everything isn't nice.
Even Jesus gave credence to the possible necessity of protection from
the evil of this world in Luke 22:36 when he recommended buying a
sword. I am against torture, but also recognize that in this fallen,
evil world there could be circumstances where elevated measures are
needed. The present administration has undermined our intelligence
community. Very bad.

You wrote: "In the meantime, when I hear a story about a Marine or soldier roughing up an insurgent terrorist to obtain information, know this:

"I don't care."

That's fine; I can't change your indifference. However, what would you think if someone were to capture an American soldier and started roughing him/her up to obtain information? Would you care? Especially if the captor were to tell the American soldier, "I'm only treating you in the way you treated my colleague?"

Also, I wondering: who would Jesus believe we should torture? Who would Jesus torture?

I didn't write that. I forwarded an interesting article. Regarding
foreigners, they already cut off our heads.

Although the above "I don't care" article has come to be attributed to a Pam Foster, it is actually the work of Doug Patton, a freelance columnist and political speechwriter. The email circulated version leaves off his two opening paragraphs and adds a closing "I don't give a sheet about sheetheads"! statement that wasn't in the original, but was otherwise a faithful copy of his article which was first published on the gopusa.com website on 6 Jan 2005.

The bottom line here folks is that we should carefully check our sources before repeating hoaxes.

Thanks for the info. Didn't know that.

Yes indeed it is an evil world. And you have so aptly displayed how the evil of the world had crept into the church.

Read my comment about the theoretical circumstance about my little
girl being abducted. The situation is theoretical, but not something
that has never happened in this world. Are there absolutely no
circumstances where elevated measures might be needed? My point is
that what we did in our intelligence community, cleared by the Justice
Dept and Intelligence Oversight Committee, were not in the same
category of what the jihadists do. The current administration has hurt
our intelligence community.

I don't really see Christ in this response. I see a lot of anger, hatred, and vengeance, but very little, if any Jesus. Someone sent it to me last summer. Here was my response--it's an imagining of what I think Jesus might say:

My Dear Child,

I see your pain, and I feel your loss. You must know that I lived in a world where people were surrounded by terror--terror from the Roman occupiers, terror from harsh, legalistic religious leaders, terror from the zealots who would topple both. And I saw the terror in the eyes of those who lived under such oppression and violence. But My Stripes were sufficient for all of these.

So I understand your feelings of grief, insecurity, and anger when people from all over the world, mostly Americans, were brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from your nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania. I wept as the nearly three thousand men, women and children died a horrible, burning, or crushing death that day. I wept over Nick Berg's beheading. I weep over mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana who don't care about the innocent children within range of their suicide. I care about these things, and I weep when they happen.

But know this, dear child. You are all my children. And I care about all of you. I care about the overworked U.S. soldier who has seen atrocities that he will carry the rest of his life. I care about the U.S. soldier who has killed in the name of his country, and who will bear the wounds of performing such acts for the rest of his life. But I also care about the terror in a prisoner's soul as he is tortured and humiliated by his captors, as he struggles for breath while being waterboarded, as he stands naked in front of jeering soldiers. They are all my children, and I care about all of them. And I died for all of them. Remember, Dear Child, that I know what it is like to be tortured and humiliated. The Romans were experts at terror and torture, and the cross was specially designed to produce a slow, excruciating, and humiliating death. I bore the jeers and the scoffing of the very people I came to save, none whom showed compassion, none who helped through my ordeal, none who stood up for me. Some present that day, I had healed from debilitating physical or mental illness. I bore the loss of my closest friends who deserted me that day.

I commanded you to love your enemies, and I showed you the way when I, while hanging on the cross, enduring the pain, humiliation, and fear, said the words "Father forgive them, for they know not what they do." I died for my enemies that day, for the very people who nailed me to the cross, who scoffed and jeered, who hated me. I died for you. I died for the victims of terror. I died for the soldiers in the war on terror. I died for the terrorists. And My Stripes are sufficient for all of these.

Dear Child, you have a choice-you can choose the Kingdom of the World that uses violence and hate to combat violence and hate. Or you can choose my Kingdom which uses love and sacrifice to engulf violence and hate, to absorb it, to redeem it, and to ultimately make all things beautiful. My Stripes are sufficient for all of these. The path to true peace is only through Me.

And where does Jesus say we then have the right to respond to terror with torture? You've heard it said an eye for an eye. Didn't He tell us to turn the other cheek? To love our enemies? How do you justify torture in light of His words? I don't see Him giving us an out when it comes to forgiveness. He didn't say "forgive, but if someone did something really really awful to you, you don't have to." Where does He give us that option?

It is an evil world. But I don't see anywhere where Jesus gives us the right to repay evil with evil. I don't see anywhere where He said we can use the fact that this is an evil world as an excuse to be evil. There is a huge difference between protecting ourselves and inflicting terror and torture on our enemies.

I have read enough, thank you.

hammerud:

1) I have not heard anyone here claiming that there is no evil in the world. At issue is how to respond to evil faithfully. Should Christians respond in kind--should they mimic evildoers? Or should they respond as Jesus did, resisting evil nonviolently (see Matthew 5:38-48)? Probably familiar with and influenced by the teaching of Jesus, Paul instructed early Christians--persons who lived with the threat of violent persecution--to "not be overcome by evil, but [to] overcome evil with good" (Romans 12:21).

2) Your interpretation of Luke 22:36 offers support for my argument posted below, in which I criticize evangelical biblical interpretation. Part of my critique is of biblicism or literalism. You have asserted a literal interpretation of Luke 22:36. Read in context, this verse appears not to have been meant in a literal sense. There is no evidence in the story of Jesus that he himself carried a sword. The ethical teaching of Jesus commands nonviolent resistance (perhaps most clearly the Sermon on the Mount, Matthew 5-7). In Luke 22:47-51 (just a few verses after the verse in question), Jesus objects to the literal use of a sword; interpreting the "sword" in 22:36 literally requires that we believe Jesus contradicted himself a short time later. After telling his diciples to buy a sword, some of his disciples do interpret him literally, presenting two swords. Jesus does not respond by telling them to go buy more, but by saying (perhaps impatiently), "It is enough." As one biblical scholar puts it, "[T]he disciples supposed he spoke of an actual sword, only to learn that two swords were sufficient for the whole enterprise, i.e. were not to be used at all." You have (mis)interpreted Jesus in the same way that his disciples did--disciples who soon after were dumbfounded.

3) In addition to assuming an "ends justifies the means" ethic, you simply assume that torture works. What evidence is there that torture works, much less that it works better than other methods? Why would a tortured person tell the truth? The torturers are likely to be told what they want to hear.