Pew study links church-going and approval of torture--sort of.

I generally cover religion and politics and social commentary-type stuff in between the movie reviews, so this Pew Research Study showing differences in the religious traditions should be the sort of thing I'd be right on top of, and I know other bloggers have commented on it--but, well--

The numbers don't interest me. I mean, there is a good difference between the percentage of "White, evangelical Protestants" who feel that torture can "often" or "sometimes" be used, vs. the percentage of "Unaffiliated" who feel that way. But the sample size and the way the question may have been put* don't leave me with an impression that church-goers or believers are overwhelmingly more inclined to be accepting of torture--or maybe I'm just a bit dismayed that any group should have so high a percentage of people who say "Often" or "Sometimes", even including the "Unaffiliated", which I know well enough to not necessarily be "atheist & agnostic", but just, well, "Unaffiliated".

Also, the numbers might imply a correlation, but they can't actually suggest a rationale. I can, but then, I'm an opinionated piece of work, and my off-the-cuff ruminations should be taken with a grain of salt.

When I listen to the arguments pro-torture, I am struck by how they seem to naturally provide an "out" to the leaders of our government. Torture is an "impermissible evil" as Charles Krauthammer put it--"except..." Condi Rice recently implied that if the president authorized it--it's legal. (An absurd proposition--the President is to protect and defend the Constitution. We are to disavow self-incrimination, cruel and unusual punishment, and live up to treaties we sign on to, per the Constitution, all of which would mean the president, even if acting as Commander-in-Chief, still has no especial right to make his own rules. Alas for the Yoo contortion of the Unitary Executive, which, if I recall correctly, boiled down to: "If you can't have war crimes during a time of war, what's the point?")

I don't see an "except" for leaders or for individuals. The ends simply don't excuse the means. I finally found how to address this issue as relates to religion, by this debate I had caught part of Sunday on PBS:

ABERNETHY: But can torture sometimes be justified?

Jean Bethke Elshtain is a professor of social and political ethics at the University of Chicago Divinity School and at Georgetown University. She joins us from Nashville. Shaun Casey is a professor of Christian ethics at Wesley Theological Seminary in Washington. Welcome to you both. Shaun — never?

Dr. SHAUN CASEY (Professor of Christian Ethics, Wesley Theological Seminary, Washington, DC): I think the bulk of the Christian moral tradition says that torture is never morally permissible. If you go to Christian Scripture, you go to the wide arc of Christian social teachings, you get a very consistent historical answer that it is never right to torture another human being.

ABERNETHY: What’s the underlying reason for this?

Dr. CASEY: Well, you look at basic Scripture, you look at Jesus in the Gospels about love your neighbor as yourself, do not repay evil for evil, love your enemy—so there’s this sense that each person is created by God in the image of God and has an inherent dignity, and torture would render that dignity undermined.

ABERNETHY: And Jean, what are the underlying principles for you?

Dr. JEAN BETHKE ELSHTAIN (Professor of Social and Political Ethics, University of Chicago Divinity School and Georgetown University): Well, the underlying principle for me is what I would call an “ethic of responsibility.” That’s an ethic that is especially important when we’re talking about statesmen and stateswomen who often have the lives of thousands in their hands, quite literally.

ABERNETHY: So they have a different rule, a different ethic, a different moral standard than somebody would if he’s just acting as an individual?

Dr. ELSHTAIN: Not entirely different. We don’t want a huge chasm to emerge. But I would say that there are extraordinary circumstances when harrowing judgments must be made by those we tax with the responsibility of keeping us safe, and at those times there may be a “lesser evil” kind of calculation to be made.

Dr. CASEY: We have about a 60-year tradition of international law and domestic law that regulates the behavior of those who, in fact, are called to be our political leaders and there is a consistent prohibition of the use of torture. In fact, the United States has been a leading catalyst in that international movement, so I agree with that. But I think we have some rules that are in place that prohibit torture.

ABERNETHY: But beyond what’s legal is what’s moral. I mean, they’re not always the same, are they?

Dr. CASEY: That’s true, and as the president said the other night in part of the clip that you played for us, that he believes that a leader in his position who faces those harrowing decisions ultimately is going to decide on both, of the angels and on responsibility if in fact we as a country refrain from using torture.

ABERNETHY: So, Jean, the president then has this primary moral responsibility, would you say, of protecting the people?

Dr. ELSHTAIN: Yes, that’s why we have states. That’s the reason that people made the deal back in the 17th century to organize the state — to prevent capricious power and the slaughter of human beings willy-nilly. That’s the reason we have states and have leaders to protect us.

Dr. Elshtain's position is the problematic idea that there might be some other, more flexible morality that we can apply to statemen or governments. But these statesmen are still just people. It seems to me that an "ethic of responsibility" is quite vague. Are our lives all we're worth? Our property? Our reputation? Our sense of history? Our laws? It doesn't seem to me that our leaders really are faced with a clear cut choice: "Your morality or your lives!" She acknowledges that torture should be a "last resort"--but how "last" is "last"?

It seems that there is a tradition within some Christian thought that allows for a kind of compartmentalization or hierarchical-thinking--a division of issues pertaining to "Caesar" and those pertaining to "Christ", perhaps, or maybe just a more "top-down" approach as to where one looks for answers to tricky moral issues.

In this respect, atheism lets me for once, play the moral absolutist. Does torture do harm? Very well then, do away with it. I won't generalize that this is how the "Unaffiliated" people are viewing it, necessarily.

Again, the numbers just aren't a gap wide enough to interest me. But I remain fascinated by the debate.





(*If they, in fact did frame it as: Torture to gain important information from suspected terrorists is justified if:, then my issue with the framing is that we already think "important information" should be forthcoming, and that we have credible reason to believe that we are "harshly interrogating" terrorists; realitistically, I'd be interested in the more pared-down question: "Should anyone be tortured, for whatever reason?" and let the inquiring mind also consider all of those circumstances in which they'd rule it out, since a) torture can not be trusted to always provide reliable information, and b) we aren't torturing people who have been tried in any event, and our society does still occasionally hold to the old standard, "innocent until proven guilty.")