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 were surprising, especially for those believers who think morality requires a god, or more specifically, the Christian god. Here are the percentages of those groups that thought torture was often or sometimes justified:
White Evangelical Protestants: 62%
White non-Hispanic Catholics: 51%
White Mainline Protestants: 46%
In attempting to gauge the depth of “religious” commitment, the Pew Research Center also broke down the survey by the frequency of church attendance:
Weekly or more frequent: 54%
Monthly or a few times a year 51%
Seldom or never 42%
What are we to think about these results? Do religious people really think that it is morally OK to torture another human being? The numbers seem to indicate that; however, we do need to be careful in the interpretation of this survey.
1. The sample size was low and although there was only a 4 percentage point error rate at the 95% confidence level (+/- 4 points) for the overall survey (see Report
), I can’t find the confidence levels for the religious affiliation especially when the total numbers dropped from 742 to 540.
2. I haven’t seen the questions used to determine religious affiliation. For instance, how does one define an Evangelical Christian? Does the person use their own definition or does Pew supply a definition? What if you are in a mainline Church but consider yourself an evangelical? Where are you placed?
3. Is frequency of church attendance really a good indicator of religious commitment or depth?
4. There seems to be a higher correlation between political party affiliation and belief in torture than there does in religious affiliation. Republicans are more likely to agree that torture is often or sometimes justified (64%) vs. Democrats (36%). (see The Torture Debate: A Closer Look
) Since the Religious right is associated with the Republican Party then perhaps we are just seeing an artifact of political, not religious, belief. Yet if this is true, what does it say about ones religion, when a political party can hijack what should be a religious conviction?
Even given these concerns, there appears to be some legitimacy to the correlation. For instance David Neff at Christianity Today
doesn’t argue with the results, stating that: First, the survey is probably accurate. Other studies have shown similar results
(Evangelicals and Torture
). He correctly states that how you ask the question can affect the outcome. Still, the question asked couldn’t be much simpler.
If the results of this survey are accurate, what could explain the belief that the torture of another human being is justified? There are several possibilities:
1. As stated above, political concerns and ideology may trump religious convictions. If this is so, the church is in a heap of trouble. Far from being “salt” and “light” to the world (Matt 5:13-16) the world is using religion to promote a political agenda.
2. Perhaps torture really isn’t all that bad from a religious standpoint, after all god the Father supposedly tortured his only son on the cross! Does this belief cause one to become deadened to the actual horrors of torture?
3. Perhaps the Christian god really does approve of torture. After all he has supposedly, in the past, ordered the wholesale slaughter of entire towns and peoples, including men, women, children and animals. Does such brutality, desensitize believers to the suffering, pain and torture of others?
4. The church, both Protestant and Catholic, has used torture in the past to destroy their enemies (called heretics). Is this much different than using torture as a political means to gain information?
5. The concept of hell may also desensitize believers to torture. Their god will torture unbelievers for all eternity for committing finite crimes.
Or maybe, just maybe, religion has less influence on people and what they believe than the church would like to think. Perhaps, many of those who call themselves Christian really have no idea what they believe or how to consistently apply a belief. They may believe in the sanctity of life and strongly oppose abortion and stem-cell research, but then once life has been born they may have no problem with “sanctity” issues relating to everything from the death penalty to torture. David Neff in the Christianity Today blog post referenced above stated that “there is (as there always is) a gap between leadership beliefs and grassroots attitudes“. In other words, until the leaders lead (e.g. tell their sheep what to think) the sheep don’t quite know what to think. If this is true, it’s insulting and sad, but then again, what more can we expect from mere sheep?