You'd Think Religious Folks Would Abhor Torture, right?

[Idoleject]

This newest pole shows that the non-religious people are less tolerant of torture than the religious.

How could that be?

Americans Learn To Stop Worrying And Love Torture « The Dish

 

[George-ananda]

Religious people abhor war too, but sometimes it's a necessary evil.

 

[Idoleject]

Religious people abhor war too, but sometimes it's a necessary evil.

.... riiight ... might it have something to do with the fact that the savior was tortured for our salvation? So, if it's good enough for him, it's good enough for eeeverybody!?

 

[George-ananda]

.... riiight ...

care to clarify what that means?

 

[Idoleject]

Religious people abhor war too, but sometimes it's a necessary evil.

I'm suddenly struck by the phrase, "a necessary evil" when one would hope that we are all striving for a world free from evil as dictated by dogma of most, if not all, religions. Yet war, like torture, is another idea that religious people seem to favor more than the non-religious. I'm wondering how evil in our species was allowed to flourish unabated even as espoused to be morally unacceptable to the law of most self respecting theologies ... unless it is seen as an integral part of the plan for salvation?

I'm seeing a pattern here ...

 

[George-ananda]

I'm suddenly struck by the phrase, "a necessary evil" when one would hope that we are all striving for a world free from evil as dictated by dogma of most, if not all, religions.

We are striving to rid evil; and sometimes we are forced to fight evil (Hitler).

Yet war, like torture, is another idea that religious people seem to favor more than the non-religious.

Nobody favors war except to fight evil.

I'm wondering how evil in our species was allowed to flourish unabated even as espoused to be morally unacceptable to the law of most self respecting theologies

Unabated? Didn't we stop Hitler? He seems abated. Evil tendencies can take hold of men even against the teachings of a theology and in those with no theology.

... unless it is seen as an integral part of the plan for salvation?

I'm not one of them types

I'm seeing a pattern here ...

What, that religious people are evil? You may be conflating evil in men with evil in religion; I don't.

 

[Koldo]

I'm suddenly struck by the phrase, "a necessary evil" when one would hope that we are all striving for a world free from evil as dictated by dogma of most, if not all, religions. Yet war, like torture, is another idea that religious people seem to favor more than the non-religious. I'm wondering how evil in our species was allowed to flourish unabated even as espoused to be morally unacceptable to the law of most self respecting theologies ... unless it is seen as an integral part of the plan for salvation?

I'm seeing a pattern here ...

Erm.... Take this as a friendly advice: You are on the verge of making yourself look silly, take care.

 

[Quintessence]

Firstly, the article is not talking about "religious people," whatever the heck that is. Let's dig behind this incredibly poor article to the original source, which appears to be a survey done by a reputable organization back in 2009:

The Religious Dimensions of the Torture Debate | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project

And, as is often the case, PEW did not look at "religious people" they looked at demographic breakdown of a few religious categories. Further, their survey assigns no statistical significance to the findings, so we don't know if the correlations are significant. If there are correlations, it is important to remember exactly that: they're correlations. It is worth remembering that the group which reports the highest amount of support - Evangelical Protestants - also tend to be politically conservative, which, IIRC, is the demographic that supports torture the most. So... is it Evangelical Protestantism that is the issue here, or political conservatism?

 

[Wirey]

Firstly, the article is not talking about "religious people," whatever the heck that is. Let's dig behind this incredibly poor article to the original source, which appears to be a survey done by a reputable organization back in 2009:

The Religious Dimensions of the Torture Debate | Pew Research Center's Religion & Public Life Project

And, as is often the case, PEW did not look at "religious people" they looked at demographic breakdown of a few religious categories. Further, their survey assigns no statistical significance to the findings, so we don't know if the correlations are significant. If there are correlations, it is important to remember exactly that: they're correlations. It is worth remembering that the group which reports the highest amount of support - Evangelical Protestants - also tend to be politically conservative, which, IIRC, is the demographic that supports torture the most. So... is it Evangelical Protestantism that is the issue here, or political conservatism?

Stop making sense and throw a damn chair, you!

 

[gnomon]

This newest pole shows that the non-religious people are less tolerant of torture than the religious.

How could that be?

Americans Learn To Stop Worrying And Love Torture « The Dish

It can be because there is nothing inherent about religious belief in sanctifying life of all people.

Religious belief has been and remains predominantly to be a case of supernatural precepts to define a particular tribal group centered around specific traditions. No where in that description is included the sanctity of human life which would include outsiders who proscribe to a different set of traditions building supernatural precepts to support a different tribal group.

History substantiates this. Not even the monotheistic religions, starting Zoroastrianism and then Judaism, is the idea that all people fall under the same moral protection of the immediately identified ethnic identity that falls under a certain religious ideal. Many religious beliefs actively promote violence against others as well.

Religion, no matter what scholar might like to proclaim otherwise, has never been about peace and morality to all.

As well, as Quintessence pointed out, the linked article makes no mention of religious believers.

However, this is an issue in which it would be appropriate to conflate two separate ideals. The first ideal is that the majority of Americans are religious believers of various denominations. The second conflation being that Americans believe, by the majority, that harsh interrogation techniques including torture are appropriate. When you have enough of a mass of positive respondents among religious identity and belief in a specific factor, that factor in this case being harsh interrogation techniques, than it is not necessarily inappropriate to draw a distinction between the two. Namely in this case that given that the mass of Americans are religious adherents and that the mass of Americans as well believe in harsh interrogation tactics than one can draw a conclusion that religious belief in itself is not against harsh interrogation tactics.

Not only is there a strong correlation in America of such an ideal the idea that religion is somehow a concept bring peace among various ethnic or tribal identities ultimately fails in that not only has religious beliefs, or the use of religion to dominate one ethnic identity over another, been a historical truth in those cases in which multiple religious groups have participated in violent conflicts religion was not a barrier to the most foul of human actions.

So I think the OP, if choosing a better topic, could show that a modern movement against religious idealism might be a preferable system to oppose violent human conflict given the historical nature of religious conflict backed by the idea that religion among humanity has not been a great definer in preventing human conflict.

And I point to this once again. Disregarding the very, relatively new concept that spirituality is some overarching humanist concept the far more dominating spiritual and religious concepts of humanity is that of ethnic identity which has served more to divide human beings which aids in enabling human conflict than preventing human conflict.

edit: And to add, that if anyone makes the argument that those who support such methods as presented in the linked article of the OP are not following the "true" religious principles than they are making nothing more than a logical fallacy of the no true Scotsman.