Cafferty File: Why are frequent churchgoers more likely to support torture?
From the Cafferty File:
As the debate about torture rages on in Washington — with calls for investigations of the Bush administration — here’s a perhaps surprising nugget about how Americans view torture of suspected terrorists.
Turns out the more often people go to church, the more likely they are to support torture — that’s according to a new survey by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.
The poll finds that of more than half of Americans who attend church services at least once a week, 54 percent say the use of torture is often or sometimes justified.
Only 42 percent of people who seldom or never go to church agree…
Evangelical Protestants are the religious group most likely to agree; while people unaffiliated with any religious group are least likely to support torture.
Of course evangelicals were a major voting bloc courted by President Bush both times he ran for office; and former Bush officials continue to speak out now about how the harsh techniques yielded critical information that helped keep this country safe. But it’s ironic that the faithful are more supportive of torture, isn’t it?
Overall, Pew found 49 percent of Americans say torture is at least “sometimes” justified; while 47 percent say it rarely or never is. Republicans are more likely to support the actions than Democrats; while a majority of Independents believe that torture is sometimes justified.
Here’s my question to you: Why is it that the more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support torture of suspected terrorists?
Alex from Florida writes:
This should be a wake-up call to pastors. They need to teach their congregations that supporting a conservative ticket based on some values like marriage and/or abortion does not mean that you have to support the parts of that platform that don’t jive with those values. They need to address the paradox and say, “You can’t be pro-life and at the same time be pro-death penalty, pro-guns, and pro-torture.”
Boots writes:
Hi, Jack. I’m not sure that the ‘faithful’ finding torture acceptable should surprise us. Isn’t that what Islamic fundamentalists do? All radicalized forms of thinking lack innate tolerance — that’s what radicalism does, whether it’s based on religion, politics, culture, money or anything else. That’s what I think we should be considering here.
Charles writes:
I am an Evangelical Protestant and I absolutely abhor torture, Bush and all he stood for. I can only hope that the poll which was the basis of this accusation was somehow flawed.
Ralph from Orange Park, Florida writes:
Frequent churchgoers are more likely to be self-righteous, intolerant and ready to demonize others, all of which makes it easier for them to justify torture.
Michael from New Mexico writes:
That is a loaded question, Jack. I do not accept the premise. Churchgoers are not more likely to support torture. I don’t know who they polled to arrive at such an absurd conclusion. But, I suspect this to be propaganda with the agenda to smear believers, using a very broad brush.
Clinton writes:
Why? Why?! Really? Jack, c’mon… Can you say, “Crusades?” Can you say, “Holy War?” Can you say, “Jihad?” Nobody loves man’s inhumanity to man more than those who have God on their side.
George writes:
Having been tortured sitting through all of those sermons, I think it’s no wonder churchgoers want to share the misery.




Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature "incapable of being ordered" to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church's moral tradition, have been termed "intrinsically evil" (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that "there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object". The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: "Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons: all these and the like are a disgrace, and so long as they infect human civilization they contaminate those who inflict them more than those who suffer injustice, and they are a negation of the honour due to the Creator".
--Veritatis Splendor, Pope John Paul II
The above quote presents the kind of tortured logic typical of all academic theologians. God is a fraud and all religions are false. The sooner people evolve into atheism the better. Religion causes unnecessary trouble.
Comments are closed on this entry