The More Frequently You Attend Church, The More Likely You Are to Support Torture
Well this is curious. According to a Pew Research Center poll released last week, the more frequently one attends a religious service, the more likely it is that one approves of torture. Currently, about half the country supports some form of torture, so long as it is "justified."
The survey, which was conducted from April 14-21, included 742 American adults. They were asked the question, "Do you think the use of torture against suspected
terrorists in order to gain important information can often be
justified, sometimes be justified, rarely be justified, or never be
justified?"
The results are shocking, as they completely contradict church doctrine. Those most likely to support torture are white evangelical protestants. I realize that, technically, torture victims aren't being killed, and technically this doesn't contradict an evangelical's "pro-life" stance, but I thought inherent in their belief system was a respect for all life, and an aversion to cruelty. I guess torture now falls into the same category as the death penalty. "Love thy neighbor," indeed.
Andrew Sullivan wrote an excellent response to the poll, featuring a video clip of the trailer from "The Passion of the Christ," and stating,
One wonders how many times evangelical preachers have inveighed against
the evil of someone like me getting a civil marriage license compared
with acts of cruelty inflicted on defenseless human beings in American
custody. But one also sees the impact of a Catholic hierarchy more
exercized on these social issues than on a categorical evil defended
proudly by a former vice-president.
He's right; what's infuritating is that evangelicals have been using their stiff religious doctrines to oppose select parts of society they dislike or misunderstand; yet so many have easily and selfishly abandoned these very beliefs out of primal fear.
See the graphic breakdown for the poll below.
I'd like to make some snarky comment about how attending church services is a form of torture, so those who do it regularly see other forms of it as no big deal. But alas, the hyper-focus on abortion to the exclusion of issues like this is pathetic. How small-minded can people be? When would we ever see Catholic bishops issuing edicts to deny Communion to Dick Cheney, or conservatives raising a stink over a commencement address by G.W. Bush?
I know that many on this blog, aside from some who may practice a faith, get a thrill up their leg whenever they participate in Christian-bashing, but really, it's old. Personally, my philosophy is that "torture" should be limited to extreme cases involving confirmed Al Queada leaders/terrorists when they have information about something that would lead to vast civilian casualties. I wouldn't want us to use medieval torture devices, but as long as there is a doctor overseeing it and we don't rape/kill people, I think that there are rare cases in which it is necessary. And, if it was your child, you would do it, too. If you want to die because your convictions forbid water boarding people with information about terror plots against innocent people, than feel free, but you die for your own convictions-leave me out of it.
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
Christianity or any other "faith" deserves no more respectful handling as far as dismantling irrational beliefs than any other way of thinking- be it political party, social club, anything. If a "religion" other than xianity was promoting the idea that making someone feel like they are drowning to the point of potential organ failure against everything the US stands for (ie human rights, due process, etc) they would be soundly condemned as nutcases. When it's religion, particularly the majority faith, we're supposed to "respect" it and treat it with kid gloves. People marry off child brides in the name of religion, they commit female genital mutilation in the name of religion. This is NO DIFFERENT belief-wise. Its never acceptable to completely undermine what this nation and the majority of its saner citizens believe to obtain some kind of information- particularly when the information doesn't exist. Torture is wrong and if the church makes people feel more comfortable that it happens, then the CHURCH IS WRONG. Period.
My point.
But I wonder, because Christians differ in their political views. What specifically does church-going have to do with being pro-torture? More research...
I really think that this comes down to how one defines torture. For instance, like I said, I don't think that we should "torture" POWs, only people who have proven links to a terrorist group, who are intelligence knows something about a future terrorist plot. If President Bush or Clinton could have prevented 9/11 and the deaths of three thousand people by waterboarding people with information about it, wouldn't that have been worth it? I think so. I would rather waterboard soemone under a strict set of perameters than have thousands die in a terrorist attack or from our bombs because we didn't know exactly where the terrorist cell was and we dropped them on a village hoping that that was were it was. That saves lives. Now, if this were a discussion about, say, whether to drop bombs on villages, than that would be a more significant conversation about the role of faith in people's lives. Being pro life, for instance, doesn't just entail being against abortion, but against war and the death penalty, as well. Personally I would like to see us come up with as many techniques as possible to avoid killing people during war, particularly civilians, and I actually feel that in some cases, we may have to use technique's like waterboarding to achieve that end. If you could save an innocent Afghani family by waterboarding one terrorist and bombing the corrrect location of the terrorist cell in the mountains rather than an entire village, wouldn't that be better? I think so.
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
Progo35, you are relying on the 'ticking time bomb' scenario, as every torture apologist does. The problem is, it's a fiction. It's an intellectual fraud. It doesn't happen outside of TV. There is no evidence that torture is an effective technique for obtaining accurate information; instead, it tends to produce false confessions, as people being tortured tend to tell their torturers anything they think the torturers want to hear, just to make the torture stop. And as state policy, legalising torture is a horrible idea. No society has ever successfully implemented a limited torture regime, in which torture is only used in 'ticking time bomb' scenarios (because they don't happen). Torture is generally used to punish and terrorise a target population (in the case of the United States, that population is Arabs/Muslims). It is used as an instrument to demonstrate absolute state power, to subdue populations. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was waterboarded 183 times in a month. If there were a ticking bomb, it had an awfully long fuse, didn't it?
Did you know that there were children in Guantanamo Bay? One was between 15 and 17 years of age when captured - he was illiterate and didn't know his date of birth. He was arrested for allegedly throwing a grenade at American soldiers, which is by no definition terrorism (which is defined as violence against civilians for political purposes). His mind has been destroyed by extended incarceration and torture.
Many of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay have been released due to lack of evidence. That means many of the people who were tortured are innocent. A problem, of course, is that torture can politically radicalise people - it's more likely than anything else to create terrorists.
Regarding the OP: actually, people *have* been tortured to death in American custody - see the documentary 'Taxi to the Dark Side', for example. So-called 'pro-life' torture supporters are indeed hypocrites. I'm pretty sure a lot of the people who support torture of detainees are also racist -- anti-Arab/Muslim bigotry is pretty rampant among ultra-conservative evangelical populations.
There are good reasons why the UN Convention Against Torture (to which the United States is a signatory, and which has been enacted into US law - apparently torture supporters don't care about the law, either) contains an absolute prohibition on torture. It's cruel, it's sadistic, it's inhumane, it is never restricted to 'extreme circumstances', and it does. not. work.
Torture wasn't used by the US during WWII because it is INEFFECTIVE for any purpose other than for making victims say exactly what you want them to say to avoid further torture, and of course, for entertaining the people who order it who don't want to get their hands dirty with actual blood. That's why it was used by your "heroes" in the Bush Administration to get phony evidence to "justify" the invasion of Iraq.
You can take your "24" DVDs with the phony bullshit ticking timebomb scenarios and stuff them up your ass. Nobody has examples of torture saving lives because the examples don't exist
It is obvious that you don't care about the safety of American troops, otherwise you'd oppose torture on the basis that a government that publicly commits torture is one whose troops will be tortured whenever the enemy of the week gets their hands on them them.
Realist mom-
This post does not criticize religion, it pigeonholes people who practice Christianity as people who support "torture," which isn't clarified as being waterboarding or sleep deprivation, but just as torture, conjuring up images of things that are not supported by Christians or our government.
A criticism of Christianity itself would focus on theology, such as, "I don't like the Christian belief in hell and the Evangelical belief in exclusive salvation. I am offended by both doctrines because if they are true, than God doesn't sound like a loving God, to me." A criticism of Christians as a group stereotypes the people who practice Christianity, and is not a crticism of religion. It is true that religious people and religion aren't above criticism, but this post just goes to an overriding agenda of stigmatizing a group of people that some in the pro choice community regard with particular ire because of their (our) stance against abortion. For that matter, secular people or religious people who do support abortion rights are not above criticism, either, yet that is the attitude that one sometimes gets from pro choice advocates.
And, just to be clear, the Catholic church has been pretty vocal in statements against the use of waterboarding/torture and the handling of various wars, so it's inaccurate to assert that the Catholic church supports "torture." And, just so we're straight and you know who you're insulting, Colleen, I'm an Evangelical.
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
And, just to be clear, the Catholic church has been pretty vocal in statements against the use of waterboarding/torture and the handling of various wars, so it's inaccurate to assert that the Catholic church supports "torture."
But they haven't been so vocal as to consider withholding Communion from those who support waterboarding/torture, or instigate wars... why is that? Doesn't the Church consider these issues to be important? Why are they willing to call out the troops for safe and legal abortion, but not for these atrocities? Why don't they show the same amount of advocacy on pretty much any issue other than abortion?
The Catholic Church will never deny communion to those who advocate torture because of their past history of accusing midwives, women with property, and women _and_ men who criticized the Church of "heresy" or "witchcraft" and committing some really obscene tortures on them; then confiscating all their belongings and land. They have never apologized for these atrocities or made any sort of reparations. "Respect human life"? Yeah, _riiiight_!
That's why "torture" doesn't fall under the same rubric as abortion.
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
Thanks for filling us in on that disgusting bit of moral 'reasoning' Progo. See what I mean about lacking even the semblance of moral authority? Lie down with dogs....
Never mind that it isn't true, that actual, gestated and born people have died in Bush's torture rooms. (we even have some photographic evidence which, like the reports of pedophile priests, you clearly haven't bothered to research. Nevermind that the monsters you support destroyed the minds and spirits of their victims.Both sorts, to tell the truth.
Nevermind that torture is illegal and that the (ironically 'pro-life') men and women who enabled and ordered it committed war crimes and should be tried at the Hague.
No problem. I'll be sure to keep filling you in on all the civilians who will die in Obama's raids on Pakistan, and on the many viable fetuse that are killed by Dr. Tiller and other individuals because of their handicaps. As for pedophile preists, that's in interesting segway into an issue that is totally unrelated to what we've been disscussing, as if knowing about the pedophile scandal impacting less than 1 percent of Catholic preists would necessitate abandoning one's faith.
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
No problem. I'll be sure to keep filling you in on all the civilians who will die in Obama's raids on Pakistan
The point is not to inform us about this, Progo35. We know that innocent people often die in these raids. The point is to get the Catholic Church to actually draw a line in the sand on this, rather than remaining the one-hit wonder that it is now.
As for pedophile preists, that's in interesting segway into an issue that is totally unrelated to what we've been disscussing, as if knowing about the pedophile scandal impacting less than 1 percent of Catholic preists would necessitate abandoning one's faith.
The scandal was not about the relatively few priests who molested little kids. The scandal was how the Church's power structure kept the abuse under wraps, and shuffled these priests between parishes so that word would not get out (and, in effect, allowing these priests to find new victims). And so long as Bernard Law continues to reside in a place of honor at the Vatican, that rot goes up to the very top. So you'll have to excuse us if we conclude that the Catholic Church and morality do not necessarily have anything to do with each other---and are often, in fact, quite at odds.
No, I'm not letting you off the hook that easy, anon. You just stated that you know that innocent people will die as a result of these raids but you oppose "torture" that can actually help reduce civilian casualties. You seem more upset by the idea of waterboarding someone we know has informationon a terrorist plot than about blowing women and children to pieces because were were trying to kill the same terrorists in villages and other inhabited regions. Your priorities are very skewed. Like I said, the thing about pedophile preists is off topic and belongs on another thread/article.
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
I've read Progo's scenario about how torture/enhanced interro/whatever name we call it could prevent terrorist attack. But it seems these scenarios only exist in the hypothetical or suppositional. We all have watched interrogation in the movies. We all have watched how the bad guy wouldn't talk unless their knees get capped. Men like me enjoy these movies. But that's all we see - movies, fiction. It sounds intuitive (intuition = our socialized imaginations?) that torture would be necessary to crack a bad guy, but what do real-life army people say? How many REAL terror plots foiled because of waterborading or whatever?
Are we only able to cite fictional examples to support the "need" for torture?
A lot of the time torture isn't even a reliable source of information. Hell, if I was being tortured, I'd say whatever they wanted me to, true or false; whatever makes the pain stop. I'd imagine a lot of people would do the same and just say whatever their tormenters wanted them to. So why bother? You can't rely on the information they provide.
Yes, they *do* die. Good god. People have been tortured to death in US custody. Innocent people. See my post above. You know that waterboarding basically involves almost-drowning people, right? When people are being 'almost-drowned', there is a very real danger that they will aspirate water and *actually* drown. It is *real* torture, and it's actually more likely to kill someone than, say, having one's fingernails pulled out. Smashing someone against a wall ('walling') is *real* torture. Sleep deprivation, sonsory overload, stress positions, exposure to extreme temperatures and dietary manipulation are *real* torture, keeping in mind that those 'techniques' were used in combination with one another. Not everyone is killed; that is true. Some just have their minds and/or bodies destroyed. Did you know that the United States government/military were paying bounty hunters in Afghanistan to turn over suspected 'terrorists'? Paying incredibly poverty stricken people. It was inevitable that innocent people were going to be turned over.
If you have access to an academic database, Progo35, you might want to do a search on the 'ticking time bomb' scenario. There's plenty of material debunking it.
So you're telling us that the 100+ people who have died in US prison camps in Iraq all died of natural causes.
That makes you a liar, an ignorant fool, or probably both. Go back to FreeRepublic and tell them you are a failure.
Problem in misunderstanding of the people each other. A problem in favourable perusal of the Koran... I not strongly believing person, but the believer. And me sometimes happens interestingly: here church against abortions, yes, I go to church, on a confession and to a participle; yes, I against sex before marriage, against divorces, against abortions, against contraception; yes, I consider homosexuality contradicting a human nature real destination. If you regularly go to church, you for certain against abortions. It is a trend, the tendency against which anything to do it is impossible. So has developed...
it pigeonholes people who practice Christianity as people who support
"torture," which isn't clarified as being waterboarding or sleep
deprivation,
It discusses a poll conducted by Pew which demonstrates that Evangelicals and Catholics support the use of torture more than the average citizen. This comes as a suprise to no one. If you want to quarrel with the results of the poll please complain to the Pew Research Center and tell them how 'anti-Christian' they are.
Please don't insult our intelligence by claiming that waterboarding isn't torture.
I know that many on this blog, aside from some who may practice a faith, get a thrill up their leg whenever they participate in Christian-bashing, but really, it's old.
So, criticizing Christians for not acting in a Christ-like manner is Christian-bashing. Got it. If I say that a bishop's hat looks funny, does that count as "brutal assault and battery?"
Personally, my philosophy is that "torture" should be limited to extreme cases involving...
So, in a nutshell, you support torture. Oh, but only against people you don't like. I'm sure that other countries will be happy to do the same to our POWs.
If you want to die because your convictions forbid water boarding people with information about terror plots against innocent people, than feel free, but you die for your own convictions-leave me out of it.
And if you want to die because your standards of police evidence and probable cause forbid raids against suspected criminals, then feel free... because we don't live in a police state, and living in a free nation has its costs.
These are confirmed terrorists who may have information to prevent another 9/11. "Living in a free nation has it's costs." Okay, so how about your child's life? Or your mother's? Or maybe yours? What about mine?? What would you rather have: a waterboarded terrorist or 3000 dead people? Are their/our deaths the "cost" of "living in a free nation?"
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
These are confirmed terrorists who may have information to prevent another 9/11.
May have? You want to engage in torture on nothing more than that?
Okay, so how about your child's life? Or your mother's? Or maybe yours? What about mine?? What would you rather have: a waterboarded terrorist or 3000 dead people?
I'll take neither, thank you very much. As much as you can posit a situation where it's really one or the other, I can posit that there's a way to keep us safe without compromising our principles. You're under the illusion that you can actually make that sort of tradeoff like buying something in a store---that if it doesn't work out, you can bring it back, or complain to the manager to set things right.
What if you waterboard, and it doesn't save 3000 lives? What if the subject makes something up, just to make you stop? What if the non-prohibition on torture causes it to be used incrementally in other cases, further tarnishing the image of the U.S. abroad? What if we lose whatever moral high ground we can bring to bear in international relations? Because I think all those outcomes are more likely than your jackpot scenario of nipping another 9/11 in the bud.
Are their/our deaths the "cost" of "living in a free nation?"
Do you suppose there are a lot of criminals/terrorists in North Korea? Do you think there is something about their approach to law enforcement that we could learn from?
I know that many on this blog, aside from some who may practice a
faith, get a thrill up their leg whenever they participate in
Christian-bashing, but really, it's old.
See, the problem is that we're innundated with folks like you who keep claiming a moral high ground when neither you or your Church are entitled to such a claim.Quite the opposite.
I'm pleased to see that the folks who attend mainline Protestant churches (who also 'practice a faith') aren't nearly as far gone as the Evangelicals or Catholic 'faithful'.
I think that there are rare cases in which it is necessary.
Of course you do.The Catholic church invented waterboarding during one of their several inquisitions.It was very effective. Hundreds of thousands of women admitted to practicing witchcraft
Stupid people...
So you call yourself a Christian and believe abortions are a Blessing. Read The Word! Thou Shall Not Kill!
we know that an abortion could live given a chance at 9 months old, given UNDER a natural delivery with or without pain killers.
So keep on thinking that the continued practice of abortion is OK. When the laws are passed for senior euthenasia FOR OLD AGE or at any age, may GOD help you abortion activists and may you be the first ones they choose, whoever they are to select when (The Right To Live Laws) are passed. Maybe if you aren't smart enough to figure this out, they'll come to take your life away from you too. Maybe you'll be a lucky one who gets a fast execution rather than having your brains sucked out or a lethal injection of a saline solution which with burn your body from the inside out rather from the outside in as abortion is practiced.
ALL (LIVES) CHILDREN BORN AND UNBORN, YOUNG AND OLD ARE PRECIOUS TO JESUS CHRIST, THE ONE AND ONLY TRUE GOD.
The only way these sorts of laws will ever even be considered is if we srop our vigilance and let the Religious Right back into power.
Actually Carl, I hope I am one of the first they euthanize. When I get old and alone, I'd rather be dead than in some home wasting away until I'm 120. I'd like to kick off around 85, but I digress. I think euthanasia is humane if someone is in horrible pain with an incurable disease. If a person wants it, why not? It's their life/death. And we do it to animals all the time for no particular reason except that they exist. (And I'm pretty sure that's not what God had in mind when he made us stewards of the earth. But that's beside the point.) And (yes, I know this is morbid) I also kind of wish I had been aborted. Being alive isn't that fun; kinda sucks most of the time. Plus, I don't believe that God would be cruel enough to let an innocent go to hell, regardless of whatever your religion claims, so if a "baby with a soul" got aborted, wouldn't it go straight to heaven? Isn't that better than this life on earth? Aren't religious people basically just waiting to get to heaven? I can't believe a loving God would punish a baby for being "unborn" or unbaptized. So even if you want to pretend a 1st trimester fetus and a baby are the same thing, which they clearly aren't, shouldn't abortion be like the fast track to heaven? I'm not trying to offend anyone. It's just that the religious argument doesn't make any sense to me.
Anon-euthanasia is nothing to joke about. Already in the Netherlands, they have begun killing people who have not asked for euthanasia or who have said no, which they call "termination without request or consent." Disabled people have already been encouraged to choose euthanasia in oregon where that procedure has been legal for several years. If you want more information, http://wesleyjsmith.com/blog is a good place, as is the International Task Force Against Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide, Not Dead Yet, and ADAPT.
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
Disabled people have already been encouraged to choose euthanasia in
oregon where that procedure has been legal for several years.
Name one.
Washington and Oregon have both passed Death with Dignity laws via statewide referendum. Unless you're using 'disabled' to mean an individual who has sought out two Doctors who agree that he or she has a terminal illness and less than 6 months to live I fail to see where your claim of 'disabled people encouraged to choose euthanasia' comes from. If someone is encouraging disabled people to 'choose euthanasia' many of us would appreciate knowing who is doing this so that we can put a stop to it.
Both these laws (and Washington's in particular) passed by wide margins and they passed because few people want to see themselves or their loved ones forced to endure unnecessarily the agony and indignity of a long, painful death.
http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2008/10/forced-exit-no-conscientious-ob...
http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2009/03/upside-down-medicine-in-oregon-...
http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2008/06/covering-cost-of-assisted-suici...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGLaZmOZFxo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36nlylod0rY
http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2008/08/harsh-values-of-health-care-rat...
http://notdeadyetnewscommentary.blogspot.com/
http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2008/07/another-assisted-suicide-abuse-...
http://notdeadyetnewscommentary.blogspot.com/
http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2008/02/where-is-mainstream-media-in-sa...
http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2008/04/netherlands-euthanasia-statisti...
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
http://studentsandcitizensagainstfutileethics.org
http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Death-Assault-Medical-America/dp/18935
5449X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242274678&sr=8-1
http://www.amazon.com/Forced-Exit-Euthanasia-Assisted-Suicide/dp/1594031...
Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
I asked you to substantiate your claim that: "Disabled people have already been encouraged to choose euthanasia in
oregon where that procedure has been legal for several years."
I went to the URLs you provided and found a great deal of information I didn't ask about. I did not watch the Utube links because I've a slow connection. I'm not about to purchase and read a couple of books
The only thing I found relating to your claim about Oregon's Death with Dignity act was a couple of stories about a guy with prostate cancer upset because the state would not pay for his chemo but would pay for his assisted suicide.
Do I think it's unfortunate that poor people die every day because they cannot afford medical care? You bet I do. I cannot begin to say how much I wish we had decent healthcare, affordable to all. But when you say things like "Disabled people have already been encouraged to choose euthanasia in
oregon....that's highly misleading.
This is a problem with a venal healthcare system and a sick social fabric, not a problem with assisted suicide which is only available to those with less than 6 months to live.
Colleen-I have no way of knowing what kind of connection you have, so if you can't go to the youtube connections I provided, that isn't my problem. If that's the case, you should have specificied and I would have provided different links. This is important because if you HAD gone to the youtube link, you would have also heard the story about Barbara Wagner, also encouraged by Oregon's Medicaid program to choose assisted suicide instead of recieving cancer treatment. In response to your specific inquiry, I named not only one, but TWO people who have been in that situation. Thus, what I said is correct: disabled people (you better believe having cancer is disabling) have been encouraged, in fact, financially forced, to choose Assisted Suicide instead of legit medical treatment. I also provided the other links so that you could see the reaction from the disabled community and the direction legalized euthanasia has taken in the Netherlands, as well as do more research on the subject, should you wish to do so. When I have some time I will try to find another link to the Babara Wagner story, okay?
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
so if you can't go to the youtube connections I provided, that isn't my problem.
I did not mean to imply that it was your problem.
Thus, what I said is correct: disabled people (you better believe
having cancer is disabling) have been encouraged, in fact, financially
forced, to choose Assisted Suicide instead of legit medical treatment
I suppose that one could make a pretty good case for describing someone with a terminal illness of any sort as 'disabled' but that's not how we normally describe folks with a terminal illness. The problem you have unearthed isn't that Oregon and now Washington have assisted suicide laws, it's that health care is unaffordable for much of the population. Many states have been throwing disabled and poor folks off the medicaid rolls. The feds were paying for breast exams at one point which led to single mothers discovering they had cancer with no way to treat it. Now even more folks are falling through the cracks. It breaks my heart.
If the cancers of the two people you mention were curable and they were denied treatment because they couldn't afford to pay for it this is a deplorable situation but one that is happening all over the country.This is why I believe in what Republicans call 'socialized medicine' and normal folks call 'the single payer option'. I believe healthcare is a right and not something reserved only for those who can afford yearly double digit inflation.
I also provided the other links so that you could see the reaction from
the disabled community and the direction legalized euthanasia has taken
in the Netherlands, as well as do more research on the subject, should
you wish to do so. When I have some time I will try to find another
link to the Babara Wagner story, okay?
Thank you for your efforts, I'll be very busy the next few days myself. I hope your music theory test goes well tomorrow. Take care.
Hi, Colleen,
I think this is where you and I have found some common ground. Like you, I am appallled by how our system currently shuns those with disabilities, terminal illnesses, and low income. This is one of the major reasons why people in the disabled community oppose assisted suicide, because we know that that will disproportionately impact those who have disabilities, are poor, are in despair, and who otherwise are shortchanged in terms of social justice. When euthanasia becomes legalized, it will be the easy way out for Medicaid, Medicare and the insurance companies, which is why it should never, ever happen. There are also a lot of serious problems with the medical training at some schools. For instance, only six medical schools require courses in pain management for graduation. This needs to change. People do not need to live in pain, and they do not need to kill themselves to avoid that pain, but when society lets them fall through the cracks because we don't care enough, then its no wonder that some affected people are clamoring for assisted suicide. But that can only lead to more social injustice.
This is something that I feel that pro life and pro choice people should work together on. I feel that we can do this without compromising our positions on thsoe isues, yet get more done if we combine the best of both philosophies in fighting such oppressive policies.
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
I most certainly was not joking. I do not find life, death and torture something to joke about. I was completely serious. I've watched my older relatives live into their 90s and be completely miserable, in pain, and alone most of the time (we can't visit often; they live in Arkansas and Ohio and I do not) and if they asked me to end their suffering I would do it. I can't imagine wanting to be alive in your 100's somewhere. I don't even enjoy being alive now, let alone when I'm decrepit. I see no problem with pulling the plug on someone who's miserable and in pain and is losing their mental faculties. THAT sounds like torture to me. And, sad as this may sound, I really do wish I'd been aborted. One ticket straight to heaven without all this earth crap that sucks so much.
Personally, I find your views laughable. Does that mean you must have been joking too?
Anon-I don't mean to sound callous toward your own pain, as it sounds as if you are suffering from some sort of clinical depression, but what you just articulated is just a reflection of your incredibly dim view of life in general. That does not lend credence to the idea that it should be legal for people to end their lives becuase they are old, and are experiencing the "pain" and "misery" of being so. We have a responsibility to take care of the elderly, sick, and handicapped, not help them into oblivion. It is our shirking of that responsibility that leads people to seek suicide in the first place, and if we legalize assisted suicide, that's just one more excuse for us not to take care of such people like we should.
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
No, we shouldn't legislate based on my views. (And I prefer to think of my view as realistic, not dim.) Nor should we legislate based on your Pollyanna view of everything. You are living in a fantasy world. Let me guess: you're from the suburbs, middle class, happy family, parents still together? You people think that your lives are so wonderful that everybody must want to live forever. But there are many of us who DO NOT want to be kept alive and on machines in a hospital, in pain. That is why we have "DNR" orders, and they are neither cruel, irresponsible, or unreasonable, and they've been legal for quite some time. I think it's a difficult choice to make (and shouldn't be made in cases of depression, because medication could help them.) I'm talking about terminally ill, horrible pain, no movement, no visits from family...this is torture as sure as waterboarding or starving someone. You probably would have kept Terry Schaivo in pain and immobile for years instead of pulling the plug. I know it can be hard to say goodbye to someone you love, but if machines are keeping them alive, maybe God is ready for them. Why is it okay to keep people alive on machines when they could die naturally and probably more peacefully if they were just given heavy painkillers until they eventually pass in their sleep? And for the love of God, please think this point over before immediately dismissing it as "depressed" or "dim" or anything else. Look at the people that may be terminally ill and in horrendous pain. Why do you want them to suffer more, when they could go peacefully to their God? And "helping them into oblivion?" Don't you profess to be a Christian, and therefore believe in heaven? They're not going to oblivion. They're going to a better place, where they can be with their God and their deceased loved ones, where they can finally see the wife who has been dead for 30 years, their parents who loved and raised them, their deceased friends? What is wrong with that? And quit making assumptions about me or anyone else. We don't need your "help." I'm not depressed. I just work with the extremely under-privledged and so have a realistic world view. And one of my best friends works as elder care nurse, so I can see it from their side. I also recently lost my great-aunt, and I'm not sorry. She was so unhappy, so sick, in so much pain, that I'm glad she's in heaven now. And you do sound callous. Not toward my supposed "pain" and "depression", which you are obviously in no way fit to diagnose, but toward those in so much literal physical pain with incurable diseases who choose not to linger for years in pain, wasting away. People do it all the time. They reject chemo and live happily till they die from the cancer. And that's their right. YOU HAVE NO BUSINESS MAKING OTHER PEOPLE'S MEDICAL DECISIONS!! Whether it's abortion or euthanasia, it's none of your business; it's the patient's right to choose whatever path they feel is right.
What about the Christian Scientists and other very strict faiths where modern medicine is shunned and prayer in encouraged? Should they not have freedom of religion, just because it impacts their medical choices? There are just so many shades of gray on this issue that I felt the need to play Devil's advocate on my first post. Hopefully having gone more in-depth will make you see that your assumptions about me and about everyone else may be completely unfounded.
One's belief regarding the acceptance of various interogation methods or "torture" have nothing to do with whether or not someone practices a faith, ie, there isn't anything in my faith that says that I have to support the use of "torture" against people who have information regarding terrorist plots, I have made that determination based on the probability of a terrorist attack. Like I said, I'm not saying that the CIA should drag people they "don't like" off the street and torture them-I'm saying that the President should have the authority to authorize "torture" against people like Khalid Sheik Mohammad who knew about terrorist plots against innocent people. If that's the only way to prevent another September 11th, than that's what we have to do. It would be unChristian not to act in this manner if we knew that thousands of people might be killed otherwise. MOreover, couldn't this lead to less people being killed because we would have more information regarding exactly where the terrorists were, instead of dropping bombs and hoping they hit the right people, which Obama is doing right now in Pakistan? Which is worse? Maybe waterboarding is a way to decrease bombs or target them so that we actually save lives.
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
I'm a regular church goer as many of our congregation and I find the above statement absolutely false! I abhor torture so does my church's greater organization. So those 700+ must be members of Reight Wing Nuts, Conservative churches, who incidently Approve of the war in Iraq!!!! It would appear that RHRealityCheck needs to do another Reality Check!
Okay, um, *so* many problems with this. First of all, where are the non-white non-Christians in this poll? Excluding those groups seems like pretty clear-cut bias to me.
Secondly, and more importantly, and I am really surprised no one has said this yet: correlation is not causation. Seriously.
Every torture apologist relies on the 'ticking time bomb' scenario is order to justify the use of torture, in spite of the fact that such a scenario has never occurred outside of, for example, the TV show '24'. It's a hypothetical scenario torture supporters like to invoke in attempt to attach morality to what is, essentially, a psychopathic drive to cause massive, excruciating pain and suffering to another person (conveniently, many of those targeted by American torture policy have been non-white, non-Christian, non-Americans.
It does not take a lot of research to find compelling arguments for a total prohibition on torture (as in the UN Convention Against Torture). I'd strongly recommend doing such reading before coming out with stupid comments about how torture really, really does work!!!! and so on. It doesn't.
4 former heads of intelligence organizations have stated on the record that plots were disrupted by the use of waterboarding 3 terrorists. That the information gained by that method would not have been gained under "normal" methods. That's good enough for me.
I have been reading the newsletters and blogs coming out of this site for almost a year now and I can't understand the hate and verbal attacks against those people who disagree with your views. The lack of tolerance, respect for others and civil debate is eye-opening.
Anon-that's what I was going to bring up.
"
Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
Post a link from a CREDIBLE SOURCE backing up your claim that "torture works".
Here's a link to one. Although you might not think MSNBC is a credible source, it does refer to a memo from Dennis Blair, Obama's national intelligence director. The actual reports detailing the results of the three incidents are not released yet.
Where are the statistics on how many instances of torture DIDN'T provide credible information? Because the one statistic means nothing without the other. I mean, what if only 3 out of 500 cases yielded reliable information? (I think at least 3 in 500 are scared enough or stupid enough to tell the truth instead of a credible lie.) Then is it justified? With the torture of 497 innocent people? Is it worth it?
You mean torture, not 'aggressive interrogation techniques', a euphemism if ever there were one.
Numerous FBI agents have gone on the record as stating that 'traditional' interrogation techniques, such as rapport building, work far better than torture, which has a nasty tendency to produce false confessions. There is plenty of material stating as much available through academic databases, if you have access and care to look.
I guess, Progo35, you're one of those people who believes that it is perfectly possible to start two wars in less than two years - at least one of them based on fabricated evidence, some obtained through torture - and be a really awesome person who 'values life'.
There's some good information regarding torture at http://humanityagainstcrimes.blogspot.com/ and http://emptywheel.firedoglake.com/ - those sites are worth looking through.
I really do want to know what the statistics are on torture. Does anyone know of a credible site with statistics on how many people were tortured at Guantanamo vs. how many actually gave credible information? I feel like that particular statistic could have a great impact on the turn of this conversation.
Let's face it, there are few effective ways to get islamofacists to talk. I mean let's face it what other options are there? To hear that the wake is widening http://www.thepresidentialcandidates.us/president-obama-is-up-to-66-approval/1048/ is just ridiculous, this trial is to be had in the public court of opinion not congress!
Let's face it, there are few effective ways to get islamofacists to talk. I mean let's face it what other options are there?
Keven, you should read up on modern interrogation methods sometime. There are many approaches that are not torture, that are not physically coercive (pain, etc.), that can be quite effective. Good interrogators will tell you that waterboarding and the like aren't even effective methods once you put ideological objections aside. Where it's really at, is in psychology. Many approaches are even premised on building a rapport with the subject. (That might not work with KSM and his ilk, but with lower-level operatives, it often does.)
'Defusing the Ticking Bomb Scenario: Why we must say no to torture, always', published by the Association for the Prevention of Torture, is a source debunking the ticking time bomb myth. It's publicly available as a PDF - google it.
Former CIA agent refers to ticking time bomb sceanrio as 'discredited': http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1892352,00.html
The person above who referred to the 'Islamofascists' has been paying far too much attention to David Horowitz (always a bad idea).
I would like to clarify that I support waterboarding because it's a controlled, non letal method of coercion. I'm not saying that we should get info on terrorist plots by strapping
terrorists to medieval torture devices or gouging out their eyes to make them talk, for goodness sake. Also, what about the extradition that the Clinton administration did, to countries the did torture? Isn't that worse that dunking someone in the water for a few seconds? I feel like this is being made out to sound as if people who support Waterboarding also support starving people and raping them to get information out of them, and that's just not true.
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
It's not just 'dunking someone in water for a few seconds'. It is strapping someone to a table, tilting the table so the head is below the feet, placing a rag over the mouth or in the mouth and pouring water over it. It induces the sensation of being drowned. Have you read the torture memos that were released in April? They were keeping tracheotomy kits in the rooms in which people were being waterboarded because of the very real danger of water aspiration. So, detainees could be waterboarded, aspirate water, almost die, have their throats cut open with a scalpel and a tube shoved into their airway - the interrogators tried not to even allow the detainees to escape their torture by dying. I can't believe you're trying to pretend that's some benign little procedure. It isn't. And are you really trying to say that it's ok because Clinton legalised rendition to countries known to torture? Has it occurred to you that not all of us view all issues through some ridiculous prism of American partisan politics in which something is bad if a president from one party does it, but perfectly ok if someone from the other party does it? I would fully support prosecution of Clinton, as I would support prosecution of Obama for his continued attempts to cover up torture.
Binyam Mohammed apparently had his testicles sliced during torture sessions. Are you going to pretend that's not really torture? Are you going to pretend that mock burials and placing an insect phobic person in a coffin sized box with insects isn't really torture (that's discussed in the Bybee memo)?
And are you going to bother to address the torture of child detainees, which is a violation of the Geneva Conventions, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, the UN Convention against torture, and US domestic law? And the fact that numerous detainees who were tortured (including Binyam Mohammed, who had his testicles sliced) have been released after being detained for years because there's no evidence that they're anything but innocent? Do you support torturing innocent people, Progo? Apparently you do.
And please, please, stop pretending the waterboard is not a medieval torture device. It is. And as I've pointed out, it's not the only method of torture that was being used. Mock burials, exploiting phobias, bashing people against walls and god only knows what else were also used. And they were used in combination. Can you imagine being waterboarded, shoved in a freezing room, chained to the ceiling and prevented from sleeping for 180 hours, wearing nothing but a diaper, brought out of the room and waterboarded, shoved back in the freezing room and chained to the ceiling again, brought out, being subjected to 'walling', and so on and so forth and on and on? Those are all documented abuses that went on. Are you going to pretend that's just pretend torture, too?
Christopher Hitchens once thought waterboarding was no big deal, just a brief dunk in the water. Like kids playing by the poolside would do.
So, to put the controversy to rest, he gave it a try himself.
The title of the above-linked article? Believe Me, It’s Torture.
It induces the feeling of drowning for a few seconds by pouring water over a restrained person's face. I'd say that's a lot better than a lot of our lousy "allies" would do to someone who was extradited to them. No, Emma, I don't support torturing innocent people, I support waterboarding terrorists who have information about future attacks that would kill vast numbers of people. As for child detainees, could you please document that? And, the UN convention on the rights of the child hasn't been ratified by the US yet, so it doesn't apply, although I'm not suggesting that we waterboard children.
Like I've said, I'm not arguing that torture is a great thing, but if I had to choose between vast amounts of people dying or doing the things you've listed (except for including children or slicing somene's testicles), I'd do that.
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
It induces the feeling of drowning for a few seconds by pouring water over a restrained person's face. I'd say that's a lot better than a lot of our lousy "allies" would do to someone who was extradited to them.
Waterboarding! It's better than what the Egyptians would do to you!
Heck, this ain't a bad approach! Our health care system? I'll have you know, we're doing a whole lot better than Somalia there! Why can't we just leave good enough alone?
Like I've said, I'm not arguing that torture is a great thing, but if I had to choose between vast amounts of people dying or doing the things you've listed (except for including children or slicing somene's testicles), I'd do that.
Wait, wait... you mean, given a choice between thousands of people dying, and one Middle Eastern raghead getting his balls cut, you'd choose the dead people?? For shame!! I'd just like to see you go up to all the parents and family of the dead, and say to their face, "I'm sorry for your loss, but a dirty terrorist's balls were more important than your son's/daughter's/brother's/sister's/family's life."
</sarcasm>
Is there something that strikes you as... wrong... about that sort of response? (Besides the juvenile giggling about balls?)
Ha. Yeah, Anonymous, I think you've got it about right. And yeah, the response would have been wrong on several levels if not for the fact that you were being sarcastic, ;-P
I think you're right on with the racism thing. As I wrote upthread somewhere, I've read that there's a huge amount of anti-Arab/Muslim sentiment amongst conservative evangelicals.
I'm fascinated by the fact that some people seem *so* attached to the idea of the ticking time bomb scenario, especially given the fact that it's been roundly debunked. I guess some people are just really attracted to the idea of other people being brutalised.
Progo: I'm not going to do your research for you, and it seems fairly evident that you haven't bothered to read any of the links I've provided, nor have you bothered to address the majority of the points I've raised. Regarding child detainees: look up Mohammed Jawad and Omar Khadr. Try a search on 'child detainees' and/or those two names at the Human Rights Watch website, assuming you can be bothered.
Clearly, you've already tried and convicted every single person in US detention (which even the government hasn't done, hence the release of many - I guess you have access to better evidence, hmm?). The point of bothering to discuss this with you seems very limited, since you're deluding yourself into believing that if the government tortured people (although you seem to have a rather peculiar and limited idea of what constitutes *real* torture) then they must have deserved it and it is Good. Thank you, though, for providing such a repulsive example of Christian 'morality'. Seriously, I think I'm going to throw up.
Anon-you seem to feel that a good life precipitates a joy in life, or that people who value life have perfect lives, or that people living in the suburbs have never had a financial problem.
How difficult does my life have to be for my perspective to have credibility for you? Do I have to have, say, five disabilities instead of three? Been sexually assaulted ten times instead of eight? Been abandoned by my biological mother in addition to being exposed to LSD and secondhand smoke while I was in utero? Been tormented 24 hours, seven days a week by my peers, instead of eight hours, six days a week during elementary and middle school years, including church and extracurricular activities?
I guess when considered in regard to all that, my adopted parents, singing ability, intelligence, compassion and advocacy skills don't count for much. I mean, life is painful and burdensome enough without imposing my Pollyana viewpoint on it. Everyone deserves equal rights in regard to protection from suicide, because everyone has a unique set of good and bad experiences that influence their behavior and shape their lives.
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
So, apparently Progo35 also supports forcing people with terminal illnesses to die slow, horrible, agonising deaths.
Have you ever considered the possibility that you sound like just the kind of person who would have cheered as your Jesus was crucified?
Emma-
the euthanasia movement isn't about allowing terminally people to die peaceful deaths, it's about death on demand for people with any condition that they feel is intolerable, including mental illnesses and personal misfortune. That is the ultimate goal of that movement: To make the right to die as accessible and accepted abortion currently is.
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
And you've seen these alleged goals in print that we all are supposedly following? Because I sure as hell didn't get that memo.
Most proponents of "Death with Dignity" that I know would like to see it expanded to whatever a person IN SOUND MIND personally deems intolerable, but recognize that because of the difficulties in making these determinations and a clear intention of preventing slippery-slope abuse they won't push for it. If it is my life, and I do not PERSONALLY wish to live with an incurable, incapacitating or extremely painful illness, why should I be forced to do so? As it stands however, it is really only feasible at this juncture to give those with painful terminal illnesses this option, and I am proud to live in a state which recognizes this even if most of the hospitals in my immediate area will not participate because of the conservative religious beliefs in the community. (Catholic and Mormon)
I am bipolar/ major depressive (the diagnosis seems rather fluid). I recognize that when I am in a suicidal ideation state I am NOT in sound mind. It would NEVER be appropriate to allow me to continue in that mindset or allow me to take it to its conclusion. That is where "in sound mind" comes in. Nobody wants to let the mentally ill willy-nilly off themselves.
However, let us say I was involved in a major accident and became completely paralyzed, to the point I could not feed myself or take care of my own hygiene. My mind is unaffected beyond the distress that comes with this new way of life. Spinal damage has rendered me in permanent pain that cannot be relieved even with the strongest of narcotics. My children are grown and I have made every attempt to adjust to my new situation but I simply do not wish to continue this life with no hope of recovery, draining the resources of my family and being in continuous pain and having no dignity or control.
I should have to live... why again? Because your sky-daddy said so?
The Realist Mom: Yeah, I read an article a while ag about an Australian woman who was dying of bowel cancer. She desperately wanted euthanasia (which is illegal here), and put a youtube video up begging people to help her obtain barbiturates to use to euthanise herself. She obtained them, but didn't use them as she was afraid of having her family end up in legal trouble. She died vomiting the contents of her intestines. So awful. No one should be forced to go through that. And I know someone whose father has ALS - he can't move, can't speak, recently lost the ability to swallow. Soon he'll lose the ability to breathe on his own. No one should be forced to go through that, either.
I note that Ms Progo is still ignoring everything I've written re: children and innocent people being tortured. I wonder if it's that she doesn't care or just doesn't want to know.
Realistmom-I have done extensive research on this topic as a disability advocate. You seem to be gleefully ignoring the secular disability rights movement in citing my "sky daddy" as the reason for opposition to assisted suicide. That is demeaning and dehumanizing to those within that movement.
Back to depression/mental illness-a person could make a very rational case for suicide on the grounds that his or her depression or mental illness is incurable and will cause them future pain and distress. This has already been legalized in the Netherlands, where euthanasia is legal.If you wish to do more research I suggest going to the links that I provided to Coleen when we discussed this topic, found on this thread.
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
Emma-I've read the links you provided and it didn't change my mind.
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
What needs to be understood is that people need increased access to pain medication and other relief measures to prevent "vomiting up the contents of intestines." That woman did not have to die that way, there are powerful medications and relief measures that should have been offered to her. Why didn't anyone from youtube care enough to hook her up with that? That is the solution, not euthanasia.
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
http://www.seattlepi.com/connelly/346947_joel11.html
http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2009/05/update_andy_thomas_...
"Well behaved women seldom make history."-Laurel Thatcher Ulrich
Emma-I've read the links you provided and it didn't change my mind.
So, you support torturing 15 year olds? I hate to say it, but you are a sadist.
And do you really think the hospital didn't provide strong medications to the woman who died from bowel cancer? Seriously? She died from a bowel obstruction; Anti-nausea drugs are not necessarily going to stop vomiting from that kind of complication.
Your views are indefensible. I cannot believe that someone who pretends to care so much about life and suffering would advocate torturing children. That's just grotesque and sickening: the beliefs of someone with an authoritarian, sadistic, sick mind.
العاب بنات حديثة و جديدة للبنات فقط
العاب اطفال فقط
العاب حربية و استراتيجية
العاب رياضية منوعة
العاب متنوعه
العاب اكشن قتالية
العاب ذكاء
العاب تلوين شخصيات و رسومات
العاب حيوانات
العاب ديزنى و كرتون نتورك
العاب سوبر ماريو و سونيك
العاب كرتون و انمى افلام و مسلسلات
العاب تلبيس اولاد فقط/>
العاب سيارات و السباق
العاب العروسة سيو دولز
العاب باربي barbie
العاب بنات براتز و براتس جيرلز
العاب ديكور و ترتيب الغرف و الاثاث
العاب طبخ الطعم و تحضير الاكلات
العاب قص الشعر و كوافير البنات
العاب مشاهير للبنات تلبيس و مكياج
العاب مكياج و ميك اب بنات
العاب هانا مونتانا
العاب ديكور و ترتيب الغرف
اخبار
افلام
افلام كرتون و مقاطع انمى
كليبات المرأه عالم حواء
كليبات و مقاطع متنوعة
مقاطع فضائح
مقاطع فيديو دينية اسلامية
مقاطع فيديو رياضية
