Login Here 
Atrios and Digby wonder where all our leaders who profess to be people of faith are with regard to torture, both Democrat (Obama) and Republican (Lieberman). The question proceeds from an assumption that people of faith should naturally be against this sort of thing, but as a Pew report tells us, it is the secularists and not the Christians who are most likely to be appalled.
On the whole torture doesn't poll so strongly -- might this have something to do with the failure of so many on both sides of the aisle to stand up to St. John McCain? (One has to wonder at the logic of the '08 hopefuls who are too timid to stand up to him now, and expect that we somehow won't remember that their nerve crumbled when it really mattered. A little demonstrable leadership would be nice).
But surprisingly (or not, as your perspective might dictate) people who identify themselves as Christians seem to be more enthusiastic about the whole idea of torture than their secular fellows.
If you combine those Christians who think torture is either never or only rarely acceptable, you have 42 percent of Catholics and 49 percent of white Protestants. The comparable statistic of those who are decribed as "secular," which I presume means agnostic or atheist, is 57 percent opposition. In other words, if you are an American Christian, you are more likely to support torture than if you are an atheist or agnostic. Christians for torture: it's a new constituency. Another part of the Bush legacy.
Until such time as someone decides it's time to legalize pedophelia and opposition to the bill surveys like shit, I like to think we've hit the wall when it comes to gifting one's conscience to the pollsters and being led around by the nose by the religious right.
As Atrios suggests, it certainly would be nice to see Barak Obama stand on the floor of the Senate and give one of those rousing faith-based speeches he is so famous for; such leadership would certainly blunt his own critique of Democrats that they are a bunch of godless heathens and hostile to religion. As Digby always says, it's time to stop the Biden-esque exhortations about what Democrats should and shouldn't be doing and actually do it.
(Hat-tip to Richard Cranium.)
Share This 
Spotlight
Fitz?
Seems the legacy of the Inquisition lives on.
I wonder what the results would look if you broke down the religous categories down into Republicans vs. Democrats.
Perhaps something about idolizing the image of their savior being crucified…
The Torture Bill vs the Domestic Wiretapping Bill and why one is going to pass and the other ain’t quite making it.
Pretty simple explanation:
The Torture Bill affects “other folks”.
The Domestic Wiretapping Bill affects “us”.
Easy decision on both on the part of the public as well as those Congresscritters.
No problem sticking it to other folks, but in an election year, probably not a winner sticking it to us.
Simple, neat, and oh so pathological!
Jesus would forgive them for they know not what they do.
Take the Fox News Quiz!
http://freewayblogger.blogspot.....-quiz.html
It’d be even funnier if it weren’t true.
Well, lets face it, Inquisitions are part of their heritage.
From the last thread:
Stop attacking each other.
Last warning.
I recognize tensions are high, but that excuses no one, not even regulars, from our culture of respectful discourse. If we have to put you in time out, we will.
Still waiting for someone to comment on the alleged sending of anthrax to Keith Olberman, and the glee upon which that hag at the NY Post reported it!!!!
Eric @ 10
Crooks and Liars has the details, here.
Lou Costello @ 6
Not true!
Fundies believe Jeebus would forgive them ’cause they know exactly what they’re doing, and Jeebus would want them to be sending those folks straight to perdition.
Hell, those folks aren’t even Xtians!
I think that the split between secular and religious is based on the split between (1) who expects to be tortured, and (b) who expects to be applying the torture.
The sad thing about this poll is that the “never” category was not over 50%. As far as I’m concerned, the pro-torture lobby has already won.
Pachacutec @
9
Democracy is a contact sport.
Speaking as a Christian, this has to be one of the most depressing things I’ve ever seen. I can’t imagine a more total failure of communicating our core beliefs to the people who claim to follow Jesus than this. I don’t know what else to say.
Mad Dogs @ 12
The question was Jesus…not what some fundie thinks or not.
The Jesus I know would forgive them because that just the kinda guy he is.
You’ve hit one of my pet peeves with this one, Jane. I get livid about the religious wailing and hand-wringing on the right (gays, Plan B, etc.) and the parallel silence on the left.
I too am curious about the breakdown of various subgroups in the survey, so I went looking for the report. Among the highlights:
The groups that were most likely to say torture is never justified: security experts (59%) and religious leaders (56%); least likely to say torture is never justified: state/local govt types (29%) and news media (36%). In between were several other groups, including military (49%) and scientists/engineers (48%).
Still digging through a long report, but if I find some other nuggets, I’ll pass them along.
Thanks, Jane, for raising this!!!
If one is an atheist (or not sure), one has fewer ways to justify the infliction of human suffering. There are ways, but you have to actually do the mental and ethical homework to get there.
On the other hand, if you can rely on a higher power to justify inflicting suffering, it’s much easier; you can see yourself as being not responsible for doing so. So if you believe in a higher power, whether it is some variety of god, Joe Stalin, Chairman Mao, Adolf Hitler or some particularly nasty local spirit, you’re more likely to torture and approve of torturing. Seems logical to me.
winje:
Yes, and armies that fight need to fight the enemy, not each other. We’re at crunch time coming from behind on these issues. We don’t have the luxury to waste energy fighting or trashing each other.
Again, as stated earlier, please don’t mistake my concise prose for anger or any permutation of disrespect. I’m just going for clarity here, offering my point of view for community consideration.
bdu @
11
It certainly raised my eyebrows. If I recall correctly, one of the NYPost’s employees contracted cutaneous anthrax on her middle finger during the the whole anthrax episode. It made for a memorable cover photo.
Here’s a quote for Harry Reid and Barack Obama to think about while they’re making excuses for deciding not to burn any of the precious powder of their “political capital” by opposing the legalization of arbitrary arrest and torture by WHOEVER THE FUCK BUSH AND RUMSFELD WANT TO SEIZE.
Sorry, my caps-lock key seemed to get stuck there for some reason. The quote is:
“What would it profit a man to gain the world, if in the process he loses his soul?”
So, Harry, you’d legalize torture to gain control of the Senate?
So, Barack, this doesn’t bother you as a Christian and a Democrat?
Are you guys going to DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT or just tell us that when you’ve got Tester and Webb and Sanders, then maybe next time you’ll have some fucking backbone and stand up for what’s right? How many Democrats past forty-five do you NEED to get forty-one?
windje @ 15
I don’t agree. The whole point of democratic rules is to resolve disputes through non-violent — “non-contact” — means. I don’t see how one can understand the Constitution and the Bill of Rights any other way.
bdu @ 11
Didn’t Ann “Deathmask” Coulter brag a few weeks ago about sending fake anthrax letters?
Was going to post this on the previous thread, and then saw we had a new one…
I haven’t had much time today to keep up with things, but in skimming over the comments, I am trying to figure out what, exactly, will be accomplished if people do not vote for Democrats in the mid-terms. Will it get us a majority in Congress? Nope. Will it put more Republicans in office? Yup. Do we need an even more marginalized voice? Nope. So, what will you have accomplished? You think you’ll get a pass when the train comes and the men in the black trench coats come into your neighborhood? I doubt it.
Look, I don’t get why any American would vote for any of this legislation. Part of the problem is that too few of the people who get a vote on it even fully understand what it is they are voting for or against, and where torture and habeas and immunity from prosecution are concerned, no one has any business voting who cannot accurately explain the legislation.
For my money, the options should be (1) put a hold on all of the legislation, if that’s possible, (2) if not, filibuster the crap out of it and (3) if filibuster fails, walk out of the chamber, en masse, right onto the steps of the building, where they can be joined by as many military men and women as they can get together, put innocent people who have been tortured in front of a microphone to tell their stories, and then have each and every Democrat read a portion of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and the appropriate Geneva Conventions, and end with the text of the oath of office that each took.
I think Jesus would be proud of that fight.
If you support torture, you support abortion!
That should give them pause.
The argument goes a little like this :
Peoplelover : So you have a guy you think is connected to a terrorist threat, but you can’t prove it. He’s innocent under the law. It’s one of those ticking bomb scenarios, ok to torture him?
Godlover : Well, obviously I’m not happy about torturing anyone. But if it has to be done to protect the multitude, I suppose it’s ok…it’s one person’s welfare against the many.
PL : What if we can’t crack him? Can we torture his wife in front of him till we break him? It’s still one against the many…and the clock is ticking..
GL : What!? Well, I suppose. I mean lots of Christian lives are at stake…
PL : What if he still won’t crack? Can we poke a few hot wires at his pregnant wife’s fetus till he tells us what he knows?
GL : What!! The Fetus? But the bible….but the President..OMG [stroked out]
Lou Costello @ 17
And my point was these folks know exactly what they’re doing.
The “Not True!” part related to “they know not what they do”.
I don’t buy the “cover” of “they know not what they do”.
I’d love to see a darkblack photoshop a semite on a crucifix wearing a keffiyeh with the caption “Does this make it okay now?”
scarecrow @ 23
Democracy represents the ebb and flow of competing judgments in the marketplace of ideas. If you thought I was alluding to physical contact, you are mistaken.
Norm reposted this missive from the daily brew the other day - seems fitting here.
http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gm.....s_tor.html
more at the link
SharonW at 28 — Nice (in a very sad sort of way)
Eyes on the prize peeps!
Get out the vote.
Come November we need to take back at least one house.
We need to work to take back the majority.Remember, it took the Repugnants a long time to get it.
It’s our turn.
If the Repugs can go back and change long standing laws to suit their purpose,so can we.
Enough in-fighting.Attack Atttack Attaaaaaaack!
Fundies also support the death penalty. It’s an odd disconnect that happens in their heads. I’ll never understand how they can reconcile Americans killing innocent people in Iraq and their religious beliefs. A fundy evangelist once told me this killing is an acceptable price of war.
I wrote a little about this today http://www.dailykos.com/user/RagingGurrl
Jesus said repeatedly in the Gospels that people should love each other. I’m pretty sure that torture is not included in loving each other.
I like to remember that God is very big on the TRUTH.
Sooner or later the truth about this sorry time in American history will become known.
Then we can spend the rest of our lives apologizing to the rest of the world like post-WWII Germans.
FIGHT BACK NOW!!! Don’t wait for history’s condemnation!
Anne –
That’s a pretty good strategy, politically and ethically.
weird, they just did a roll call and it seems that the chamber is nearly empty…
windje
Then it seems we agree.
immanentize @ 31
Effective, I think. One needs to show those people who love Christ how to see Christ in others.
Every human spirit is divine and a child of god…if you believe in that sort thing.
Anne @ 25
Can you imagine that? Talk about front page coverage.
Anne @ 25, and scarecrow
Great suggestion, let me second that idea. Walk out. Don’t vote for it.
Republicans: Pro-post-birth-abortion
I can hardly believe this. Torture? Christians?
I grew up reading about torture OF Christians, by Romans. How did we get this way? God help us, really. I mean it.
I had to go back and re-look at the poll. It doesn’t fit with my red state observations. The fundie pro-torture number is way to low. The poll is a year old..I think a year of brain washing in the mega-church has increased the pro-torture number a lot. and I still can’t believe this nightmare.
nj progressive @ 40
me, too. would love to be there.
In general, I’m agnostic on this issue — I’d love for Democrats to take a more vocal stand, but I also understand the strategy of trying to defeat the bill procedurally without giving Rove added fearmongering fodder.
But I agree with Atrios that for Obama, there’s no excuse. He’s got the media clout to make an impact, and he’s not in danger of losing reelection. He’s just scared to lead.
Anne @ 25
I’ll go with your plan.
At least until the newspeople ignore the demonstration.
scarecrow @ 35
works for me! I’m almost positive I just heard Landrieu vote with the thugs.
The ironies are almost too much to bear. According to the gospels (and translating a bit to the language of today), Jesus was tortured at the hands of the religious and political authorities. He was condemned by a military tribunal, operating under some very odd rules of procedure. A pardon was offered, but the cries of the mob for his death ruled it out. He died a painful death given only to slaves and those who rebel against the government.
Now Bush wants to take what was meted out against the one he claims as his savior and make it the official policy of this nation. This begs only one question: henceforth, will he call himself a Pilatist instead of a Christian?
I’d love to see Obama bring out a bowl of water and a towel onto the Senate floor . . .
angie @ 36
That’s pretty normal. Most of the wheeling and dealing is done in the hallways or behind closed doors, but rarely on the floor.
Additionally, the chamber is almost empty most of the time when someone is speaking.
“Speaking” is done for the camera, the written and electronic record, and for PR value.
Very rarely is “speaking” actually worthy of the title of “debate”.
Anne - I understand your point, but don’t agree. At some point, you say no. If your choice to “preserve the party” is voting for people who were willing to make this country a state sponsor of torture of innocent people, then yes - you take that punch. They are a cancer and if you go along, you become riddled with it yourself.
If “our voice” is the voice of appeasment on torture, then yes, I’m ok with being even more marginalized. It it means meaningless Green or libertarian votes or staying home, then that’s what it means. Because you either go along with torture or you don’t. And if you do, then you don’t deserve to serve and no one who votes for you deserves to keep their citizenship IMO.
If Hostettler votes against this legislation, I will absolutely flip support.
*****
And BTW - imo the PEW question was very biased. If it was put in terms of: Is it ok to torture innocent people, or Is it ok to torture a SUSPECT (with emphasis) to get information when you know that they will, eventually, tell you what you want them to say, whether it is the truth or not, or something along those lines, it would have been more accurate.
To say that you are torturing to get “important information” as if that is already a given outcome, slants the question.
I think I’ve pissed off too many people, so I’ll bow out.
Swopa, I agree Obama is scared to lead. After 2 years of calling and emailing him (as a constituent), I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s a constitutional (no pun intended) feature of his character: he’s a follower; he’s not scrappy.
Best to look elsewhere.
As a serious believing Catholic, I am appalled and ashamed. The Gospels make it clear that torture is always wrong, and the Catechism of my Church calls it an offense against moral law and against the dignity of the human person. No equivocations, no special cases. Wrong. Period.
And for those who will now point out to me that the Church has been responsible for torture, yes, I know. It does not negate what I said above; it does add some irony to it. What’s done is done and cannot be undone, but we can learn from it, repent, and try again.
Jane — this survey parallels one I recently saw for High School students. It seems there was less than a majority for key portions of the 1st Amendment — like freedom of the press. A majority (or close to that) thought that the press should not be allowed to publish something that the government did not approve.
I often marvel at the Founding Fathers, although even they turned a blind eye towards slavery (and equal rights for women).
William Ockham @ 1:26 pm (#16)
I’m not sure if it’s helpful, but one thing to realize when looking at a study like this is that secularists are a fairly select group of people in this country. They are people who are capable of thinking about a subject and coming to a conclusion that’s different from what the people around them believe. While there are certainly Christians who are capable of such things, the folks who aren’t tend to stay Christian, I think. Christianity is the majority religion here, and the folks who don’t feel like exploring other options aren’t likely to identify as any other religion. Trust me on this, if you’re a secularist in this country, you’re used to thinking for yourself about philosophy.
Christians sometimes get the idea that we’ve chosen this position because we don’t know anything about Christianity. That’s virtually impossible in this country. I think statisticians would refer to us as a self-selecting population.
Mary– please stay; I value you and your insight immeasurably!
Mr. A. Sullivan is still insisting on being a hoot: he presumes that secular, which he writes between inverted commas, ‘means agnostic or atheist’. No, it means maybe ‘not overtly or specifically religious’, ‘worldly’ as oppsed to transcendent, it refers to people who do not identify with any religion and who do not wish to be defined on the terms of people who are said by themselves and the media to have ‘faith’. It has nothing to do with agnosticism or atheism. Curious how people who worship gods can’t fathom that others live completely outside the notion, not in opposition to it.
These poll results make me think the nation has taken leave of its senses. The average American doesn’t seem to even care that this increases the chances of our own troops being tortured in Iraq and future conflicts.
I’m already apalled at the chilling indifference and detachment people seem to have about the war. I’ve been blaming the MSM for being asleep at the wheel for years now - but I’m coming to the conclusion more and more that it’s simply that Americans have no compassion, are selfish, unthinking, willfully blind sheep who don’t give a damn about anyone else as long as their own asses are safe.
God help us.
RagingGurrl @ 33
I’d be interested to know if the real split is between those who are more authoritarian and those who are not, rather than religion per se. Roman Catholicism is a heavily top-down religion, for example.
The reason authoritarian followers are more likely to support the death penalty, torture, war, etc. is because they implicitly trust their accepted authority figures to determine who is guilty (or, in the case of war, how much collateral damage is acceptable for the greater good.) Thus they can be in favor of these things (even to the point, as a friend in Florida heard, of proudly declaring their identity as a “pro-life, pro-death Republican”) because they are absolutely certain that those who receive it are guilty and deserve it, but be absolutely opposed to abortion because the “victim” is innocent (and the other person involved in the situation, the woman, doesn’t count.)
Senator Reid’s office was unable to state a position on whether the Senator supports a pardon for people who torture.
They were in a hurry to assure me that he has taken a position opposing torture, but I guess I don’t understand how you oppose it by giving pardons to those who do it.
scarecrow @ 37
We do, although there are some Republican lawmakers I would not hesitate to . . .
Mary — please don’t go. And I think you’re right about this:
CNN just announced that the Repugs will hold their 2008 Convention in Minneapolis.
Lawdy, the odor of fundy fire and brimstone here will shame a polecat.
Puleeze somebody, can’t you sacrifice your state instead of mine?
Come on Mississippi or Alabama! Think of all the Repug money they’d leave behind.
We’ll even pay you to make them go away!
It is probably the case that most people who identify themselves as religious are also paternalists. As George Lakoff points out, and as many others have, they believe the world is essentially a dangerous place and that the chief role of the father figure is to provide protection. Many of these people believe that evil is personified to some degree and that some people, like terrorists and child murderers, are so infected with evil and dangerous that they should be tortured and killed. Especially if it will save other lives. So your degree of infection with evil puts you a sliding scale of rights. You are either with us or against us.
Those of us in the Enlightenment tradition have a somewhat sunnier view of human life. As liberals we are opposed to excessive use of government force and coercion, not to mention arbitrary power. We believe in the universal rights of man, to apply in all cases and for all people. From a paternalist view this always comes across as a lover of evil-doers.
Let’s remember that the inquisition also was born from religous fervor. Too much religion tends to stupefy people.
Pew botched the framing of the question, IMO.
They say “use of torture…to gain important information”.
This falesly assumes that torture frequently yields valid, accurate information…rather than what torture actually produces which is whatever the interegator wants to hear. Try to kill me via stress positions and waterboarding long enough and I’ll admit to taking part in the Munich ‘72 incident…and I wasn’t even born until ‘73.
windje @ 60
Ah, but that’s precisely when the principle gets tested, isn’t it?
The only group that benefits in the long term from breaching the Constitution are the fundie Christian Reconstructionists. They detest separation of church and state, due process, equal protection, etc. The death penalty is not a paradox..they want to impose Biblical law (without dietary and temple laws) on us. You don’t believe..death, adultery..death, homosexuals..death and so on. These people are on a long term mission and if they are no stopped, we are screwed. I just got the Red State DVD in the mail. Take a look at the Jesus Camp trailer, it’s sickening.
“It is strange but true that the country’s most prominent spokesmen for the Prince of Peace and for tradition and morality are also its most outspoken proponents of torture. These worthies are unfazed to learn that this government is responsible for the bloody medieval abuse of innocent men, like the Canadian citizen Maher Arar, who was sent to a Syrian dungeon on baseless suspicion.
The Reverend Louis Sheldon, who heads an organization called the Traditional Values Coalition, has indignantly warned Senator McCain that opposing torture may mean forfeiting the support of evangelical leaders in 2008.
What are we to make of the fact that men like the reverend, who refer to themselves as “Christian” while obnoxiously suggesting that other Christians are inferior in faith and character, now tell us that we must support the horrific abuse of prisoners?
What “traditions” and “values” do Mr. Sheldon — and, for that matter, the devout Mr. Bush — truly uphold? What kind of conservative promotes the violent abuse of people who have been convicted of no crime? “
Joe Conason agrees
full article
Um, so can we convince the thirty percent of the population that will follow Bush (no matter where or what) to hole up in those gated-and-guarded subdivisions, and let us put up barricades to keep out those evil terrorists? (Seeing as there’s a lot more of us than them, and there’s no f*cking way they can build enough camps campacity to hold the two-thirds of the country that doesn’t believe them.) We just won’t tell them that anything that keeps out terrorists will also keep them in; if they can figure it out, they can come out.
Quentin @ 56
As an agnostic, I tend to think that there’s nothing oppositional about agnosticism to faith, except in that we can’t really claim to know the absolute truth like a lot of the devoutly faithful. I’m perfectly willing to entertain the idea that there’s a supreme being, but I’m going to look at someone who tells me the know God exists and have spoken to said deity personally (ahem) with a healthy amount of skepticism.
“I recognize tensions are high, but that excuses no one, not even regulars, from our culture of respectful discourse. If we have to put you in time out, we will.”
Pach,
How about ‘purgatory’, instead of ‘time out?’ As a fallen catholic, I’ve always had a hankering to check out purgatory….
Mary @ 50
I see your point, too, Mary. I am sickened and ashamed of people who call themselves Americans who are willing risk the rights of all of us by going along with this awful legislation. Both my Senators are voting as I would like them to, and I am doing what I can to make sure that Sarbanes’ replacement will be Ben Cardin, who I also know will do the right thing.
Jesus will have to try to forgive me for the anger I feel about those who are only voting for politics and partisanship instead of the Constitution they swore to preserve, protect and defend.
scarecrow @ 53
I never put too much stock in surveys of high school students. In this case, the First Amendement is a pretty academic point in their lives — they’re in an environment (school) where the “government” routinely blocks things or more subtly pressures students not to go forward with them. They’re subject to searches that would be unconstitutional in the wider world, and more, and outside of that, they’re still under their parents’ rules. So I take that result mainly as a reflection of their experiences, having not yet experienced or thought about those real freedoms to any great degree.
cajun @ 71
I want to check out Limbo. Sounds sort of peaceful. No angels incessantly singing praises to the Lord, and no smelly brimstone either.
bellumregio @ 63
bellumregio, I tend to disagree with your initial observation, but before I do let me ask: on what do you base that statement? Lakoff is right about how paternalistic folks view the world, but the leap from that to saying “most religious folks are paternalistic” is a big one, in my opinion.
Let’s not let stereotypes of religious people obscure the discussion, anymore than we would stereotype non-religious/secular/atheist/etc. folks .
Mary @ 50
please stay, i beg you. yours in a voice of reason and morality in an insane and immoral time.
Mary @ 50
You better not go!!!
Mary dear, if you feel your blood pressure is going through the roof, take a break, walk around the block, smell the roses, do something, but Do.Not.Go!
Your friends here are incapable of being pissed off by you! Not now, not ever!
That poll is almost a year old. Some more recent (albeit lacking in religious perspective) CBS numbers, via PollingReport.com:
“Do you think it is sometimes justified to use torture to get information from a suspected terrorist, or is torture never justified?”
.
Sometimes
Justified
Never
Justified
Depends
(vol.)
Unsure
% % % %
ALL adults 35 56 5 4
Republicans 50 38 6 6
Democrats 25 67 5 3
Independents 32 59 4 5
So you’ve got solid majorities of all adults, Dems and Independents saying it’s never justified. And only 50% of Republicans are saying it’s “sometimes” justified.
I don’t do political consulting, but if I did, I know what I’d be telling Democratic candidates and office holders right about now …
Peterr @ 48
Not only his Savior, his chief philosophical advisor, or however he phrased it. “He touched my heart…”
Oh, but that’s so pre 9-11….
Wish one of the WH press corps would ask Bush when he turned away from Jesus….
It is interesting to think that perhaps Reid and Obama have calculated that they are better off not to spend any of their precious “political capital” on the torture issue. I’d like to see their vast storehouse of political capital; as far as I know, they don’t have any.
Lizzy L @ 52
Where are the Catholic bishops’ outcry on this? Where the papal outrage? Where the demand of the flock not to vote for candidates who support this, as they did to Kerry?
Jane — What Would Jesus Do?
Jesus wept.
I cited some of the pieces of this military commissions bill in the last thread. The bizarrest aspect is that a detainee can be tried for torture and be convicted on the basis of evidence obtained by torture. It gives me a headache.
Peterr @ 48
Wow. Peterr - if you put this analogy out there, suggesting the parallels between Jesus and “terrorists,” every right wing head in American would explode. And we’d have to hide you. Forever.
Levin amendment is defeated.
Specter is up, but maybe Leahy first?
The fear is being perceived as weak on security.
That’s why all the Dems are standing around like they’ve been caught in the headlights.
scarecrow @ 66
It is, but ebb and flow means exactly that, it does not comport with tyranny.
“When in the course of human events . . .
Here is your photoshopped image of sweet Jesus.
http://homepage.mac.com/marymc.....bum17.html
Mary @ 1:48 pm (#50)
Yes, I think that was probably a mistake on their part. For that matter, why didn’t they ask something along the lines of “Do you think it’s a good idea for the government to torture people whom they suspect of wrongdoing?”
I sure hope you don’t, or that you come back.
Harry, Arlen and Patrick are bartering for time, all very “distinguished”. I’d love to know the total number of minutes each year we pay them to call each other that.
Specter now on Habeas.
The problem with this poll (in fact most polls) is that the question posed is false on its face and also shouldn’t be posed as a conditional. “… in order to gain important information” pre-supposes that torture is an effective means to that end, something that historical data disputes. Properly designed/conducted polls could actually have a positive impact in getting people to think critically about such issues. It would be interesting to see what the data would show if the question were posed as follows:
Hey Jane - Check out this post by Ted Rall.
http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/
I find it interesting that the obsession with the “Christian Right” and the current administration with all that is gay just happens to extend to their prefered forms of torture. Just like the inquisiton. No suprise people observe that homophobes tend to be closet cases…
I wasn’t pissed off at mary, but don’t fret, she’ll be back. I don’t think she meant forever.
If you drop out of this election, you are allowing the current situation to continue.
Aren’t we tougher than that?
We took a hit today, it was painful. But tomorrow we are going to put on our armor and FIGHT AGAIN.
If you KNOW what’s happening and give up, you are abandoning the young ones who will be living in the horrific dystopia of our near future.
Fight until you drop! We do not live for ourselves alone!
Ooh, my feelings were hurt so I quit: NOT THE WINNING STRATEGY.
Being a pacifist can be helpful for staying out of wars of aggression, but for this battle we need people who will STAND UP AND OPPOSE EVIL.
Time to dig deep, people. Whether it is your faith or your philosophy that evil should be stopped, THIS IS IT. TAKE ACTION.
Eric @
10
I wrote her a letter. Thanks for letting us know about it, I hadn’t heard anything.
Now I’ll write Keith a letter.
Mary—you mean bow out temporarily, right? We totally need you. Please clarify.
“Eyes on the prize peeps! Get out the vote. Come November we need to take back at least one house.”
Sorry. But that isn’t the prize. The prize is keeping immoral and unjust laws from being passed.
Democrats taking the house is one possible path to that prize. But based on their current behaviour, you have to seriously question that assertion.
Ok ok, Mary, if you stay, I’ll wear a yellow tie all next week.