Jeff's Lunchbreak

I've begun a series to take a closer look at Ben Carson, and the main method I've chosen is to read articles that he himself has written. The index contains links to all of the entries in the series.

The first entry in this series was mostly an introduction and some comments on Carson's troubling views on evolution (based on an interview). Today, I'm going tackle the first of the articles, which is an example of religious privilege (similar to the privilege Carson wanted in the (Navy Bible Kerfuffle).

The article is one Carson wrote for the Washington Times, Houston's First Amendment abuse. If you'd believe what Carson wrote, this would be a case of stifling free speech and religious freedom.

The recent, questionably unconstitutional moves by the City Council of Houston to subpoena the sermons of five area ministers as well as internal correspondences dealing with social issues, should have the American Civil Liberties Union and everyone else who believes in free speech and religious freedom up in arms.

But in reality, this to me is an example of the privilege religion gets in the U.S., not having to play by the same rules as every other organization. Snopes, as usual, has a pretty good summary of the specifics of this case, Houston Hustle. Various right wing groups were trying to organize a petition to challenge the recent HERO law passed in Houston. They needed 17,259 signatures to get their initiative placed on the ballot. While they had 50,000 signatures, the city rejected most of them as invalid for various reasons, and the initiative fell short of the threshold. Once they learned of this decision, the opponents of HERO filed a lawsuit against the city. As part of gathering evidence for the lawsuit, the city has subpoenaed sermons and other materials from various ministers. The reason for this, in the words of city attorney, David Feldman, is, "All officials want to know is what kinds of instructions the pastors gave out with respect to collecting petition signatures, and whether what they said agrees with what they're arguing in court while appealing the referendum." Unfortunately, public outcry against the subpoenas was so great that the city dropped them.

Perhaps the subpoenas are overly broad, but they do have a legitimate legal purpose, in trying to determine if the claims in the lawsuit are factual or not. Churches should not be above the law, and should not be able to hide behind the First Amendment to break the law. The city should have a means of investigation to determine if what the churches are claiming in their lawsuit is a lie.

But that's not the way Carson sees it. Take a look at how he sees the issue.

We as Americans must guard every aspect of our Constitution and recognize when it is being threatened. One of the great dangers in America today is extreme intolerance in the name of tolerance. For example, in this Houston case, it is presupposed that the pastors in question may have said something that was objectionable to the homosexual community.

The subpoenas were not because the pastors may have insulted homosexuals, but as I already pointed out, an attempt to determine if the churches are being honest in their lawsuit.

Although city attorneys said that they weren't interested in whether or not the churches were violating their tax-exempt status (it's not within their jurisdiction), I think that this issue should have received much more legal attention. This issue of free speech on the pulpit has certainly received a lot of attention in the articles on this issue, including Carson's.

Churches almost always file as (or simply default to) 501(c)(3) non-profit organizations. Part of the law regarding 501(c)(3) nonprofits is that they're not allowed to engage in overt political activities (About.com - Can Nonprofits Engage in Political Activity?). This applies to any organization that wants to have 501(c)(3) status, from churches to Doctors Without Borders to the Girl Scouts. When ministers want to preach politics from the pulpit, they're violating this law, and risk losing their 501(c)(3) status. It's not that the ministers don't have free speech - but churches don't get to file as that particular type of non-profit if their ministers are going to engage in political speech on church time. Of course, the ministers are free to say whatever they want when not on church time, and like I said, it's the same rules for every other 501(c)(3) charity.

And this isn't the first instance of churches escaping consequences for breaking this law. There's a movement, Pulpit Freedom Sunday, where pastors across the country openly flout this law (N.Y. Times - The Political Pulpit), but because of the special treatment churches get, the IRS has yet to go after these criminals. Just imagine if a modern day Al Capone were to found a church as a front for their organization. They really would be untouchable.

The solution for churches who want to engage in political activity is simple - don't file as a 501(c)(3). But unfortunately, many of these churches want special treatment instead of following the same rules as everybody else (and for the most part, they're getting that special treatment).

To give Carson some credit, the middle portion of his article wasn't too bad. He made some good points about tolerance, open conversation, and free speach. However, in the context of the Houston issue that prompted the article, those points seem out of place. They would have seemed more fitting in an example where people's free speach actually was being suppressed.

The issue in Houston was a city government trying to investigate claims that various churches made in a lawsuit. The city wouldn't have any jurisdiction over the churches' tax exempt statuses, at any rate. But this case clearly shows churches getting special treatment in two ways - first by blocking any investigation into claims they've made relevant to the lawsuit, and second by so egregiously violating tax law without even being investigated at all. Carson can try to claim this is an issue of free speech and religious freedom, but it really seems to be a case of religious privilege.

Summary on RealBenCarson.com: Houston's First Amendment Abuse

Image Source: Christian Post, Credit: Reuters/Jonathan Ernst

Posted by Jeff on A, Jan 27 | Permalink | Comments (33) | TrackBacks (0)

This entry is part of a series. For a listing of all entries in the series, go to the Index. Unless otherwise noted, all Bible quotations are from the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV). All headings are links to those Bible chapters.

Once again, I have to apologize for falling behind on this series. But with my projects around the house pretty much finished up, and with the holidays behind me, I think I should be able to get back into my weekend routine of reading the Bible, allowing me to keep up with this series. If I was the type to make New Year's resolutions, I'm sure one of them would be to post a new Friday Bible Blogging entry every week.

This week's entry covers the final eleven chapters of the book of Proverbs, 21-31. Just like the last entry, much of the content this week was unconnected sayings. And much of it was good advice (though not all of it). So, my focus for those chapters is going to be the verses that stood out to me.

The last couple chapters did have a bit of a different character. They were attributed to different authors than the rest of Proverbs (most proverbs are attributed to Solomon - though obviously they're a collection from multiple writers), and they had slightly different structures and themes.

Proverbs, Chapter 21

The very first verse from this chapter caught my eye.

The king's heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord;
   he turns it wherever he will.

This is an example of one of the Bible passages that goes against free will (hardening people's hearts is another obvious example). It's interesting to think of a mindset where a person believes that even their thoughts are controlled by a deity (though I suppose that wouldn't be hard for an omnipotent god).

The other passage from this chapter that stood out to me was partly because I found it a bit humorous, but also because I saw it repeated verbatim in 25:24.

It is better to live in a corner of the housetop
   than in a house shared with a contentious wife.

As with so many other parts of the Bible, this repetition is yet another example that this book was put together from previous collections.

Proverbs, Chapter 22

According to the New Oxford Annotated Bible (NOAB), this chapter begins a section constituting a separate collection, running through 24:22. The NOAB also indicates that the origin of this collection might lie in an Egyptian collection of sayings, "Instruction of Amenemope", noting several similarities. The article on Wikipedia has more info, and indicates that the scholarly consensus is a bit stronger than 'could be'.

Similar to the previous chapter, the passage in this chapter that caught my eye was due to a combination of it being a bit humorous, but also being repeated later in the book in 26:13, though not quite verbatim this time.

The lazy person says, 'There is a lion outside!
   I shall be killed in the streets!'

I think I might use that excuse the next time my wife asks me to take the trash out.

Proverbs, Chapter 23

There wasn't much that caught my eye from this chapter. It's not that it gives bad advice (well, maybe a bit like the sections on beating your kid), it's just that none of the passages particularly stand out. If I had to pick one highlight, it would be the last few verses describing getting drunk and getting a hangover (though obviously using more poetic language), before closing with:

When shall I awake?
   I will seek another drink.

Seems like a rather committed drinker.

Proverbs, Chapter 24

There was one verse that came across as, not exactly opposite of, but perhaps as a less charitable version of the Golden rule.

Do not say, 'I will do to others as they have done to me;
   I will pay them back for what they have done.'

It's not about actively helping other people, just avoiding retribution. Though I suppose that compared to the 'eye for an eye' type passages, this is a huge step in the right direction.

I particularly like the last several verses from this chapter.

I passed by the field of one who was lazy,
   by the vineyard of a stupid person;
and see, it was all overgrown with thorns;
   the ground was covered with nettles,
   and its stone wall was broken down.
Then I saw and considered it;
   I looked and received instruction.
A little sleep, a little slumber,
   a little folding of the hands to rest,
and poverty will come upon you like a robber,
   and want, like an armed warrior.

How true it is, if a little bit hyperbolic. How many times have you sat down for just a short rest from chores on the weekend, and wound up watching TV and wasting the whole afternoon? It reminds me a bit of the saying by Ben Franklin, "If you want something done, ask a busy person."

Proverbs, Chapter 25

This chapter had a heading stating, "These are other proverbs of Solomon that the officials of King Hezekiah of Judah copied." According to the NOAB, "This note gives a rare indication of a historical context for this collection."

I liked verses 21 & 22.

If your enemies are hungry, give them bread to eat;
   and if they are thirsty, give them water to drink;
for you will heap coals of fire on their heads,
   and the Lord will reward you.

Biblically sanctioned passive aggressiveness.

I also liked verse 17.

Let your foot be seldom in your neighbour's house,
   otherwise the neighbour will become weary of you and hate you.

The charitable interpretation is that it's a warning not to overstay your welcome. The less charitable version is that it's a commandment to be anti-social.

Proverbs, Chapter 26

There were two juxtaposed proverbs in this chapter that gave conflicting advice.

Do not answer fools according to their folly,
   or you will be a fool yourself.
Answer fools according to their folly,
   or they will be wise in their own eyes.

The NOAB says this "provokes reflection". Personally, I wonder if a scribe was collecting supposedly sacred sayings and felt like he had to include both of these, despite the contradiction.

This passage also caught my attention.

Like a maniac who shoots deadly firebrands and arrows,
so is one who deceives a neighbour
   and says, 'I am only joking!'

So, it seems like even the writers of the Bible thought that assholes were annoying.

Proverbs, Chapter 27

I don't have any commentary on these next two proverbs, other than to say that I just liked them.

Better is open rebuke
   than hidden love.
Well meant are the wounds a friend inflicts,
   but profuse are the kisses of an enemy.

Here's another one that I found pretty humorous.

Whoever blesses a neighbour with a loud voice,
   rising early in the morning,
   will be counted as cursing.

If power tools had been around back then, I'm sure they'd have gotten a mention as well.

Proverbs, Chapter 28

Nothing from this chapter really jumped out at me.

Proverbs, Chapter 29

There were a few proverbs dealing with servants and slaves that actually come across as pretty callous:

By mere words servants are not disciplined,
   for though they understand, they will not give heed.

and:

A slave pampered from childhood
   will come to a bad end.

According to the NOAB, "The concern with servants suggests that the audience of Proverbs is the upper class," so not really a message intended for the masses.

Proverbs, Chapter 30

Chapter 30 was attributed to "Agur son of Jakeh. An oracle." It was full of numerical sayings that had an interesting structure. As an example, here are verses 21 through 23.

Under three things the earth trembles;
   under four it cannot bear up:
a slave when he becomes king,
   and a fool when glutted with food;
an unloved woman when she gets a husband,
   and a maid when she succeeds her mistress.

The NOAB also points out that verses 7 through 10 constitute the only prayer in this whole book, and that they might have been a later addition.

Proverbs, Chapter 31

This final chapter of Proverbs is "The words of King Lemuel. An oracle that his mother taught him". That latter two thirds of it, verses 10-31, make up an acrostic poem, where each verse begins with a letter of the Hebrew alphabet, in order (of course, that information is from the NOAB, as I can't read the original Hebrew).

My favorite verse from the entire book is in this chapter, verse 7. It's my favorite not so much because it's the best proverb from the book, or even the most amusing, but because I found some tubler glasses in a thrift shop that have this proverb printed on them.

let them drink and forget their poverty,
   and remember their misery no more.

Actually, the tumbler doesn't have this verse perfectly (even accounting for different translations), since it drops the part about poverty. But I just get such a kick out of drinking my scotch out of a glass that seems to show the Bible condoning excessive drinking*.

---

So that's it for the book of Proverbs. Overall, it was pretty good. The first several chapters that dealt with the personification of Wisdom were especially interesting. I was also struck by how many influences there were from other mythologies and outside sources. And the proverbs themselves, while not universally brilliant, were good more often than not. There were some thought provoking ones, and some that I really did rather like.

With this book behind me, next week is on to the book I've actually been most looking forward to, Ecclesiastes.

New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright 1989, Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

*In context, verse 7 can be interpreted differently. Here's a Christian article, Does the Bible Recommend Drinking Alcoholic Beverages?, which says that it's more about warning King Lemuel against drinking himself since he has to be a wise ruler, even if people around him are going to drink to try to drown out their sorrows. The article cited other passages in the Bible that contradicted the 'just let them get drunk' message. Personally, I think that's a rather charitable interpretation given the word choices, and especially since I don't think the Bible was divinely inspired with a single coherent message. If I had to bet, I'd wager that the writer of this passage really did intend to allow people 'in bitter distress' to drink their problems away, even if only for temporary comfort.

Posted by Jeff on A, Jan 23 | Permalink | Comments (31) | TrackBacks (0)

In light of the potential environment impacts that the Keystone Pipeline may have, as well as Republican's notorious refusal to accept anthropogenic (i.e. human-caused) global warming (AGW), a Democratic senator, Sheldon Whitehouse, proposed an amendment to the Keystone Pipeline legislation. His amendment was for a resolution that stated "it is the sense of the Senate that climate change is real and not a hoax." This resolution was overwhelmingly passed (98-1), which has made many headlines and has a few people saying Republicans may finally, slowly, be coming around on this issue. But the way it all came about leaves me far more pessimistic - I don't see any indication that Republicans have shifted to accepting global warming, let alone human caused global warming.

First of all is the wording of the resolution. It speaks only of climate change, not warming. Granted, many people have begun referring to global warming as climate change because the actual changes to the climate are far reaching and complex, and don't necessarily translate to increased temperatures everywhere. But the phenomenon is being driven by greenhouse gases and an increase to the average temperature of the earth. But denialists can easily parse Whitehouse's proposal and say that it simply means changes, not necessarily warming.

Further, Whitehouse's resolution says nothing about the causes of global warming. This leaves open another standard denialist trope - that since we know that climate changes due to natural cycles and other causes, that the current changes are natural.

Well, these two loopholes are exactly the strategy the Republicans took. James Inhofe, one of the most vocal denialists in the Senate, voiced his support for the bill as follows (source - Newsmax).

"Climate is changing, and climate has always changed, and always will, there's archaeological evidence of that, there's biblical evidence of that, there's historic evidence of that, it will always change," Inhofe said.

"The hoax is that there are some people that are so arrogant to think that they are so powerful that they can change climate. Man can't change climate."

So, not only did Inhofe dodge the issue of warming by calling it just climate change, he flat out denied that human activities could have any effect on climate.

A bit later in the day, another Democratic senator, Brian Schatz, introduced another amendment that added in that humans were "significantly responsible" for climate change. Of course, this was too much for most Republicans. This amendment failed by a 50-49 vote, with all of the no votes coming from Republicans, and all but five of the yes votes coming from Democrats and an independent. Since the Republican party is so overwhelmingly anti-science on this issue, I suppose it's worth calling attention to the five who actually supported Schatz's amendment - Lamar Alexander, Kelly Ayotte, Susan Collins, Lindsey Graham, and Mark Kirk. For a full list of how all the senators voted (and to check on your own state's senators), check out the article on Wired, Here Are All the Senators Who Do and Don't Believe in Human-Caused Climate Change.

It's so damn frustrating that Republicans are so anti-reality on an issue with such dire consequences. Global warming is real, humans are primarily responsible, and unless we do something soon, adaptation is going to be very expensive and painful, and there's going to be a lot of suffering that could have been avoided. The fact that we have at least two years of a Republican controlled House and Senate doesn't give me much hope that anything will be accomplished before the next election.

Posted by Jeff on A, Jan 22 | Permalink | Comments (31) | TrackBacks (0)

You've probably heard of this by now, but just in case you haven't, here's a quick summary. Makayla Sault, an 11-year-old First Nation girl from Ontario had been diagnosed with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Doctors said that with chemotherapy, she had 75% odds of surviving the disease. After 11 weeks of chemo, Makayla had a dream where Jesus came to her and told her she'd been cured and that the chemo was killing her body. She decided she didn't want to do the chemo any longer, and her parents, both pastors, agreed. Along with supposedly traditional treatments*, they took her to an alternative medicine clinic in Florida, where "The girl's mother said her daughter received cold laser therapy, Vitamin C injections and a strict raw food diet, among other therapies at Hippocrates." Tragically, but unsurprisingly, Makayla died.

A good summary is available from CBC News, Makayla Sault, girl who refused chemo for leukemia, dies. This is the article I quoted above. Another summary, though not quite as good, is available from The Globe and Mail, Ontario First Nations girl taken off chemotherapy has died.

This whole affair is so tragic, yet it was most likely avoidable. Treatments for ALL have been getting better and better. Whereas a diagnosis of ALL was a near death sentence back in the '60s, patients receiving treatment now have survival rates of around 90% (more info - Pharyngula: Support cancer research now!). Had Makayla continued with the chemotherapy, she would most likely still be alive today.

Some people see this case as controversial, having to respect the rights of the parents and their traditional beliefs (even if the clinic they went to was practicing modern quack therapies). I couldn't disagree more. There should be no controversy here at all - this was clearly a case of either abuse or neglect.

On Jerry Coyne's website, he wrote an article discussing this issue, Canadian government kills First Nations girl out of misguided respect for faith. I got a bit involved in the comments, and left a reply to one of the people that sees this as a controversial case, which I've decided to copy here since it summarizes my thoughts on this well.

Children are not property of their parents. They are their own individual people, but without fully developed brains and the rational thinking and maturity that goes along with that. That is why parents have a duty to properly raise children until the children reach a sufficient level of maturity to face the world on their own. Parents should have latitude only in so much as they are acting in the best interests of the children. Once a parent's actions jeopardize or cause harm to the child, they've gone well beyond any plausible latitude.

Governments have the responsibility of protecting citizens, whether the citizen is being threatened by a stranger in a dark alley or by their own parents abusing them. Cases like this of withholding appropriate medical care are among the worst cases of abuse, since they result in the death of the child.

Children do not have sufficient maturity, experience, or knowledge to make well thought out decisions on life and death issues. Their wishes should be considered, and given increasing weight as the child matures and approaches adulthood, but those wishes should not trump the judgment of mature, well informed adults (usually the parents, but the state if the parents are incompetent).

Of course, there will always be grey areas. When does spanking become physical abuse? When does lecturing become verbal abuse? When does opting out of pills become criminal neglect? That's why we have judges and the court system. If interpreting the law were easy, we'd just have clerks administering penalties rather than having judges.

I do feel sympathy for the parents, not only for the loss of their daughter, but for the circumstances that led them to become so deluded that they thought a snake oil salesman in Florida offered more hope for Makayla than evidence based medicine. But that sympathy won't bring Makayla back. And there are other children in similar circumstances. This is tragic, and those children's lives are worth more than the parents' feelings.

I am extremely angry at people like Judge Gethin Edward, who had the chance to save these children, yet caved to cultural sensitivities. Was respect for traditional medicine worth this girl's life? How do you sleep at night knowing you sentenced her to death?**

Sadly, at least one more child, known publicly only as J.J., is almost surely going to die due to nearly identical circumstances. How many children must die before this situation will be changed?

Image Source: CBC (with video)

*Although most of the articles I've seen mention 'traditional medicine', I haven't seen any discussion of actual traditional treatments. It seems that the main treatments were from the alternative medicine clinic in Florida.

**Judge Edward ruled in the case of J.J., not Makayla, but it was that decision that set the precedent for Makayla's case. Additionally, unless there is some last minute miracle, J.J. will almost surely die, as well.

Posted by Jeff on A, Jan 20 | Permalink | Comments (28) | TrackBacks (0)

This is a few weeks old, but I can't let it go by without commenting on it.

In the wake of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on the CIA's use of torture, the Washington Post and ABC News conducted a poll to determine American's attitudes towards torture. And the results were depressing. Over half of Americans thought that torture was justified! Let that sink in a minute. We're talking about methods bad enough that we executed the Japanese soldiers who used them against American soldiers during WWII. Some of the detainees were tortured to death. And on top of all that, not all of the people tortured were actual enemies - they were merely suspects who never received their day in court, and some have since been determined to have been innocent. And people think this is justified!

For a bit of historical perspective, let's consider a document that while not quite a founding document of the USA, was still very important in showing the attitudes of the nation's founders, the Declaration of Independence. Here's the opening line to the second paragraph (emphasis mine):

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

All men. Unalienable. Jefferson and the signatories weren't hedging their words. They thought everyone was deserving of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".

Now, let's move on to a document that actually does carry legal weight in the U.S., the Constitution. Take a look at the eighth amendment (again with emphasis by me):

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

It's right there in our nation's founding document that 'cruel and unusual punishments' are forbidden, yet here we are doing just that.

Now, you could bring up the practical side, and point out that torture isn't even an effective means of obtaining information - that it's unreliable and non-torture methods are more effective. But that's a bit of a red herring. Torture is wrong on moral grounds, not just practical ones.

Americans are rightly outraged at the horrific examples of ISIS beheading U.S. journalists. But it's not because the beheadings are ineffective at ISIS achieving their goals. It's because the actions are barbaric. But how can the U.S. claim any moral high ground when we do things like this (source: The Guardian):

At COBALT, the CIA interrogated in 2002 Gul Rahman, described as a suspected Islamic extremist. He was subjected to "48 hours of sleep deprivation, auditory overload, total darkness, isolation, a cold shower and rough treatment".

CIA headquarters suggested "enhanced measures" might be needed to get him to comply. A CIA officer at COBALT ordered Rahman be "shackled to the wall of his cell in a position that required the detainee to rest on the bare concrete floor".

He was only wearing a sweatshirt as a CIA officer has ordered his clothes to be removed earlier after judging him to be uncooperative during an interrogation.

The next day, guards found Rahman dead. An internal CIA review and autopsy assessed he likely died from hypothermia - "in part from having been forced to sit on the bare concrete floor without pants". An initial CIA review and cable sent to CIA headquarters after his death included a number of misstatements and omissions.

Torturing someone, and then leaving them chained half naked to a cold concrete floor to freeze to death is barbaric. And whereas a beheading, as horrific as it is, is relatively quick, this was a prolonged torture. And the final freezing to death took hours. It was horrible.

And what about this:

"The two detainees that each had a broken foot were also subjected to walling, stress positions and cramped confinement, despite the note in their interrogation plans that these specific enhanced interrogation techniques were not requested because of the medical condition of the detainees," the report says.

And if forcing people with broken bones to stand on those bones doesn't seem harsh enough, how about shoving food and water up a person's anus:

CIA operatives subjected at least five detainees to what they called "rectal rehydration and feeding".

One CIA cable released in the report reveals that detainee Majid Khan was administered by enema his "'lunch tray' consisting of hummus, pasta with sauce, nuts and raisins was 'pureed and rectally infused'". One CIA officer's email was in the report quoted as saying "we used the largest Ewal [sic] tube we had".

...

Risks of rectal feeding and rehydration include damage to the rectum and colon, triggering bowels to empty, food rotting inside the recipient's digestive tract, and an inflamed or prolapsed rectum from carless insertion of the feeding tube. The report found that CIA leadership was notified that rectal exams may have been conducted with "Excessive force", and that one of the detainees, Mustafa al-Hawsawi, suffered from an anal fissure, chronic hemorrhoids and symptomatic rectal prolapse.

The CIA's chief of interrogations characterized rectal rehydration as a method of "total control" over detainees, and an unnamed person said the procedure helped to "clear a person's head".

These were sadistic, disgusting acts committed against human beings. And remember that they were only suspects, who never had their day in court to determine their innocence or guilt. It's absolutely shameful that a majority of Americans support this.

Aside from pointing out just how horrible this torture has been, the survey revealed something else. It broke down support for torture by various groups (details here), including political party and religious affiliation. It's probably not very surprising, but support for torture was highest among conservatives, Republicans, and the religious. In fact, the three demographic categories listed with the highest support for torture were conservative Republican (72%), Republican (71%), and white evangelical Protestant (69%) (note that percentages represent people answering 'sometimes' or 'often' to the question of whether torture of suspected terrorists can ever be justified). The three demographic groups with the least support were liberal Democrat (38%), no religion (40%), and liberal (43%). It's still distressing that so many liberals support torture, but at least it's not a majority.

Since I write about religion so much on this blog, I'll also point out explicitly that the 'no religion' category was the religious category with the least support for torture, or conversely, with the most opposition. Every other religious group listed had majority support (white evangelical Protestant - 79%, white Catholic - 68%, white non-evangelical Protestant - 63%). This is just further demonstration that religion doesn't lead people to better morals.

Anyway, I'm done with this entry. Every time I read through it again to proof-read or see if there's anything else I want to add, I just get angry. This is a horrible, horrible stain on our country's reputation. Everyone involved, from Bush and Cheney on down, ought to be taken to the Hague and tried for human rights abuses. But instead of justice, we live in a country where the majority supports this depravity.

Posted by Jeff on A, Jan 13 | Permalink | Comments (31) | TrackBacks (0)