Christians and Torture I: Christian Support for Torture?

tw: torture, torture apologism, description of torture techniques  

This is part one of a four-part series. 
Part Two
Part Three
Part Four
___________________________________________________

We also have to work, though, sort of the dark side, if you will.”
–Dick Cheney, 16 September 2001

And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and people loved darkness rather than light because their deeds were evil. For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed.
– John 3:19-20 (NRSV)

The above quote by then-Vice President Cheney set the tone for what would become the Global War on Terror, which saw an increase in official and unofficial justification for “enhanced interrogation techniques” and torture as an American weapon of war.  This past week, the Senate Intelligence Committee released their report on the CIA’s torture program which brought some of the details to light and truth. I say some, because the report is a 525 page summary of a report over 6,000 pages long.  There is much that is missing, redacted in the back and forth between the Senate and the White House (and agencies) who feared too much information released would embarrass countries who hosted torture sites and specific people who acted on the agencies’ behalf.   

The Guardian has summarized the key findings and the words that came to mind regarding the “enhanced interrogation program” are “flawed, brutal, and ineffective.”  Andrew Sullivan began an excellent and incisive live-blog reading through the report.

As Zack Beauchamp at Vox put the matter:

Perhaps the worst part of all of it is that the CIA should have known inflicting all that pain was pointless — because their own officers told them. This is, in some ways, the most telling sentence of the entire report:

CIA officers regularly called into question whether the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques were effective, assessing that the use of the techniques failed to elicit detainee cooperation or produce accurate intelligence [p.9].

While the CIA was "rectally rehydrating" prisoners, many of their own experts were telling them that the torture was pointless. As the Senate report makes very clear, these dissenting officers were right.

 What is aggravating is that after the flurry of activity following the release of the report, the truth about the program may fade into obscurity.  There is little political will to hold any of the actors accountable (which I believe is still worth the attempt).  What is particularly aggravating to me is that those of us who have been paying attention to the U.S. torture program for years have either or suspected quite a bit of what is in this report.  It shocks the conscience, yet very few seem to be paying attention.  On one hand, a powerful and idolatrous nationalistic myth about our perpetual innocence on the world stage contributes to our delusion that none of this mattered, needs our continued attention, or is so aberrant that it will never happen again.  On the other hand, while it may be still somewhat rare to find full-throated vocality in support of torture, there has been a notable and growing minority in the United States who support the use of torture.  Public opinion polls from 2008 to 2012 bear out the continued support for the use of torture, while also noting that support for torture has a generally-high correlation with church-going. In short, U.S. Christians are more likely to support torture than any other religious group or the non-affiliated community (also known as the “nones”). [Edit:  Indeed, a poll in the past week finds torture support to be incredibly high, as Sarah Posner writes.]

Why is this support for torture so readily given in spite of Christianity’s moral prohibition on torture (in moral theology if not always in practice throughout our history)?  This subject was a major component of my (Robert’s) graduate work, animated by my reaction to the abuses in Abu Ghraib while I was a student in one of the senior military academies.[1]  Since my graduate work, I have wanted to address the issue of torture in congregational settings, and perhaps these posts can be helpful to some in making that work happen. 

What I want to do in a series of blog posts is address torture through a few different lenses.  I will consider the following questions:

• Why do Americans—and in particular Christians—support torture?  And why do Christians do so at higher rates than non-Christians?

• How do you define torture?  How have we defined torture? What does torture “do”?

•  What do torture and sexual assault have in common?

•  What are the theological resources that have shaped Christianity’s moral prohibition on the use of torture (even if it has not always worked in practice)? 

Along the way, I will be pulling in some research I did in 2009-2010 and in 2012.  Occasionally the prose will read like an academic paper, but I will make an effort to conform the writing to the medium of blogging.  Expect endnotes.  Some of my work directly addressed individuals who have written on torture in the past 15 years.  Please consider them as stand-ins for the position they represent as it is possible (and in some cases probable) that I am not citing their most recent thoughts on torture.  Finally, I will be interspersing information about the latest report's findings as I go.  

Why do Americans—and in particular Christians—support torture?  And why do Christians do so at higher rates than non-Christians?

First things first, do Christians actually support torture more than the general population?  Three different polls from the years 2008, 2009, and 2012 are relevant to this post.  The first two polls I present establish a pattern of an upswing in public support for torture.  The third poll highlights an interesting detail in how Christians come to make moral decisions about torture, which will become relevant to how one would seek to curb Christian support for torture.

The first poll deserving our attention was published five years ago (in April 2009) and conducted by the Pew Research Center's Forum on Religion & Public Life.  The polling found a correlation between support for torture and religious affiliation.[2]  It was found that the likelihood a person supports torture is greater if the person attends church on a regular basis. Those attending services at least weekly supported torture “often” or “sometimes” at a rate of 54 percent while those who went to church seldom or never supported torture at a rate of 42 percent.  The Pew Forum followed the initial release of this data with a clarification that religion is not the only cause of support for torture—indeed political affiliation is a stronger corollary to support for torture—but that still leaves one to wonder about how religion plays into the moral decision-making of those whose Lord and Savior admonished his followers to “love your enemies (Mt. 5:43-48).”[3]

A little more than a week after the survey’s finding were published, the Pew Forum followed up with some caveats, which seem to be aimed at deflating arguments that religion is an  essential element in determining one’s support for torture.  The press release notes that support for torture is better-correlated to one’s political affiliation or ideology than other demographic markers, such as race or education.  “Of course,” the press release concludes, “religion itself is known to be a strong factor shaping individuals' partisanship and political ideology. Attitudes about torture are likely to reflect both moral judgments and political considerations -- both of which may be formed in part by religious convictions -- about circumstances under which torture may be justified.”  Indeed the tangles of beliefs that constitute a worldview are complex. 

 But the caveats from Pew, or the fact that polls are simply snapshots of opinion, do not create a sense of ease.  For the fact is still that half of the sample seems quite ready to break national and international law, and perform a great moral evil, in hypothetical situations that are decidedly less dire than the “ticking time-bomb” scenario.  The “time-bomb” scenario generally assumes as given that a known terrorist certainly has the information necessary to forestall a cataclysmic event that would result in the deaths of many innocents, and that the only way to retrieve the life-saving information is to torture the terrorist.  It is in this very constrained casuistic scenario that many intellectuals, philosophers, and philosophers begin to consider exceptions to the accepted absolute prohibition on torture.  Typically the decision to break the absolute prohibition is not contemplated with ease. 

Quick detour into moral questioning and casuistry :  A common question used to deliberate on the use of torture is the "ticking time-bomb scenario."  It typically states that a person who has planted a bomb is in custody and there is no doubt that the person in custody is the one who planted the bomb.  In a situation in which you need to know where the bomb is in order to diffuse it before it kills a number of innocent people, is torture acceptable?

The ticking time-bomb scenario is helpful in that it helps to clarify issues around the use of torture and moral permissibility.  The scenario is also helpful because it helps one discern slippage in the moral equation--by which I mean one can watch individuals or a society over time feel more comfortable allowing torture in spite of a number of changes to the scenario which should normally lead one to hold torture is impermissible.  An example would be to change the scenario to say that the person you are holding may or may not be the bomb maker or planter, but you suspect the person may be involved.  May you then torture the person?

Now, consider the question the survey sample was asked:  “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 [italics mine]?" There are significant elements of doubt built into the question.  We cannot assume the person in custody is a terrorist, opening the possibility of torturing an innocent person.  We cannot know ahead of time what useful information this person may have (possibly none if the person was detained mistakenly).  With such doubt built into the question and given the moral enormity of torture, it is a scandal that such a high percentage of Christians are willing to resort to torture often and that so few thought that torture should be a rarity.

Indications are that the situation has not improved since 2009.  Our second poll, from 2012, and commissioned by Amy Zegart, a professor at UCLA and a fellow of the Hoover Institute—and asking the same questions found in a fairly comprehensive 2005 USA Today/CNN/Gallup poll—shows that support for the use of torture in the United States, including the use of specific techniques, is increasing.[4]  As Zegart wrote:

“Respondents in 2012 are more pro-waterboarding, pro-threatening prisoners with dogs, pro-religious humiliation, and pro-forcing-prisoners-to-remain-naked-and-chained-in-uncomfortable-positions-in-cold-rooms. In 2005, 18 percent said they believed the naked chaining approach was OK, while 79 percent thought it was wrong. In 2012, 30 percent of Americans thought this technique was right, an increase of 12 points, while just 51 percent thought it was wrong, a drop of 28 points. In 2005, only 16 percent approved of waterboarding suspected terrorists, while an overwhelming majority (82 percent) thought it was wrong to strap people on boards and force their heads underwater to simulate drowning. Now, 25 percent of Americans believe in waterboarding terrorists, and only 55 percent think it's wrong.”

Zegert notes that the poll has a margin of error of +/- 4 percentage points, but even with such a wide margin, the poll does show that an upward swing in support for torture is underway. ^[5]   While the pollsters did not ask respondents about their religious affiliation, there is no reason to believe that Christians are lessening their support for torture.

The third poll is a 2008 poll from Mercer University and Faith in Public Life, which found strikingly similar results to the above 2009 Pew Forum poll.  However, this poll also asked about whether one’s beliefs about the propriety of relying on torture were based on religious conviction or “common sense” or “life experience.”  The pollsters found that “white evangelicals in the South are significantly more likely to rely on life experiences and common sense than Christian teachings or beliefs when thinking about the acceptability of torture.”[6]  Those who rely of common sense and life experience to derive their opinion about torture were also significantly more likely to support torture than those who relied on religious beliefs.[7] 

A discourse of incredulity and curiosity about why a group with higher reported levels of religiosity would support torture followed the publication Pew Forum’s 2009 poll.  Chris Good, writing for The Atlantic, took the survey results as cause to ask “How could this be? What happened to forgiveness and the other cheek? [Do] The Lamb of God's teachings stop at the walls of Guantanamo?”[8]  Religion scholar Martin E. Marty also found the survey’s implications troubling.  He concludes that the survey shows a need for church leaders to examine the rhetoric surrounding the use of torture, including their own, and strive for stronger condemnations.[9] 

One account for such support for torture that I found persuasive in my past research was alluded to in the magazine Humanist.  In those pages Andrew Cederdahl (rather sarcastically, but not inaccurately) points out that while the evangelicals polled, on deontological grounds, would presumably not support abortion—that the act of abortion is so evil that it should not be allowed under any circumstances—it seemed that the evangelicals became utilitarians when torture was the issue.[10]  From this, I am provisionally holding that torture represents an area of differentiated moral discourse in which religious belief does not necessarily or easily penetrate.  Instead, unreflective nationalism and the ethical discourse of national realism replace religious discourse.”  There may be many reasons for this ethical slip, both historical and theo/philosophical.  One such reason may be that the concept of the separation of church and state delineates that the appropriate sphere of influence for the church is private, not public, and so the Church has nothing of substance to say about the conduct of war.  One may arrive at that conclusion via a certain reading of Paul in Romans 13:1-4, which is sometimes read by American Christians in a way that assumes that everything that happens in the governmental realm is ordained by God.  It is of course only typically applied for policies which the Christians agree with. 

However, among those more willing to support torture, what one sees is often not a careful formulation of national realism but a more instinctual and less reflective curtailing of foundational American principles grounded in the Enlightenment--such as the notion that all people are created equal and that such equality implies responsibilities and rights that a government is bound to uphold. Anatol Lieven terms this curtailing of principles “the American Antithesis.”  Lieven posits that the “American antithesis” holds to the American thesis in principle, yet the universality of American principles will often be restricted in times of anxiety and fear, effectively creating an “in” group and an “out” group based on nationality, ethnicity, and religion.[11] 

One sees the American Antithesis on display anytime there is a restricting of any sense of universality to fundamental American claims about the rights of the person.  One may believe that all are created equal and deserve equal protection under the law, but those who fall under the American Antithesis”  functionally make exceptions for those who are not citizens by waiving any claim of universality regarding constitutional prohibitions on self-incrimination and cruel or unusual punishment as a right of humans under protection of law.[12]  In the years following 9/11/2001, the anxiety Lieven posits as necessary for the cultivation of the American antithesis has become normal and heightened.  American ideals once thought universal are increasingly now thought to apply only to American citizens.  In this, one can see the adherence to the highest ideals of democratic civic society failing because of fear and existential crisis. 

In an effort to pull together the strands of data I have presented, I offer the following narrative and diagnosis of substantial portions of American Christianity.  American Christians are more likely to support torture than other constituencies; and as a whole, Americans are becoming more inured to the use of torture.  While Christians who may identify as “conservative” are more likely to support torture, no major Christian demographic seems completely immune to having supporters of torture among their ranks.  Part of the reason for this support for torture among otherwise religious folk is a sense that questions of national security seem to reside in a different ethical bracket in which matters of faith play little or no role.  Additionally, the highest civil ideals are also seen to be faltering, and support for the harsher exercise of state power is increasing as terrorism, war, and brutality become “the new normal.” 

Part of the problem is also that torture may not be discussed in any systematic way within congregations.  In other words, the reason so many poll respondents did not rely on religious teachings is because the issue of torture is rarely broached in church beyond Christ’s crucifixion and the plight of martyrs (early and modern).  The lack of conversation on the topic could be that congregations take the American antithesis as fact, clergy are not terribly interested in addressing American uses of torture within congregations, or the subject as a whole is simply off the radar.  One way of interpreting the situation would be to conclude that churches have ceded national security discussions, and the moral dimensions of such conversations, to the realm of public, societal, and governmental discourse, and so do not feel welcome or relevant.[13] 

It may also be the case that conservative religious leaders were purposefully silent about the Bush Administration’s handling of the Global War on Terror and use of torture because of the close relationship between religious conservatives and the administration.  Randall Balmer reached this conclusion when, after asking several organizations identified as being members of the “Religious Right” to send him position statements on the Administration’s use of torture.  He only received responses from the Family Research Council and the Institute on Religion and Democracy; both refused to comment on the policies of the Bush Administration.[14]  After the organization Evangelicals for Human Rights released a position paper denouncing the use of torture ,The president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy dissented because the document came from the “Evangelical Left,” and that support from the Left "doesn't build broad support for the document…It makes the document look like a political document used to criticize the administration or the United States.”[15]  This would seem to indicate the extent to which political concerns play a role in whether Christian organizations are willing to denounce torture, for the document aimed at the abuses of the U.S. government but was inclusive of all governments that resort to torture.[16]  Meanwhile most mainline denominations and the Roman Catholic Church did release statements denouncing torture's use.

We may return to the issue of Christian support for torture, but it is time to turn to another subject.  What do we mean when we say "torture"?

To be continued…

---

[1] So, I was in military school in 2004, planning to commission in either MP or MI when the news of Abu Ghraib broke.  While it was billed as an exceptional case of bad soldiers given clearance to "soften up detainees" without direction as to how to do it, and even as President Bush expressed horror at what was happening there, it seemed clear that there were orders to get rougher with detainees.[1]  Not knowing if the Army had received something from up the chain that countermanded the Army's field manual of interrogation, I had to ask myself what I could do, or order someone else to do, to another human being.  My faith, as nominal as it was in 2004, would not allow me to torture, order others to do it, or be in a position to witness it (even if military personnel are not involved, the CIA has been doing it in military detention centers). I decided that I could not go into the military and serve with honor if I were put into a position to act against my faith, the American tradition, and international law. 

[2] The following statistics come from "The Religious Dimensions of the Torture Debate," Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, http://pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/The-Religious-Dimensions-of-the-Torture-Debate.aspx (accessed April 30, 2013).  White evangelical protestants were found to support the use of torture “often or sometimes” at a rate of 62 percent.   

[3] “The Torture Debate: A Closer Look," Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, http://pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/The-Torture-Debate-A-Closer-Look.aspx (accessed April 30, 2013). In the follow paragraphs about the followup report, see and “The Torture Debate: A Closer Look," Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, http://pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/The-Torture-Debate-A-Closer-Look.aspx (accessed March 21, 2010) and

"The Religious Dimensions of the Torture Debate." Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. http://pewforum.org/Politics-and-Elections/The-Religious-Dimensions-of-the-Torture-Debate.aspx (accessed March 21, 2010).

[4] Amy Zegart, "Torture Creep," Foreign Policy, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/09/25/torture_creep,  (accessed April 30, 2013).

[5] Zegart, “Torture Creep.”

[6] "New Poll of White Evangelicals Shows Faith, Golden Rule Influence Attitudes on Torture," Faith in Public Life and Mercer University, http://blog.faithinpubliclife.org/upload/2008/09/FPL%20Mercer%20Torture%20Poll%20Memo%20Final-no%20embargo.pdf (accessed September 11, 2008).  Unfortunately, I am now unable to locate these documents online.  I have requested that the website administrator respond with an updated resource URL.

[7] According to the Mercer poll, the number of respondents who supported torture often/sometimes by relying on common sense and/or life experience was twenty-five percentage points higher than those who supported torture often/sometimes relying on religious teachings and/or beliefs.

[8] See Chris Good, "Pew: Church-Goers Like Torture More - The Atlantic Politics Channel," The Atlantic Politics Channel, http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/04/pew_church-goers_like_torture_more.php (accessed February 11, 2010)

[9] Martin Marty, "Torture," Sightings, http://divinity.uchicago.edu/martycenter/publications/sightings/archive_2009/0504.shtml (accessed March 21, 2010). 

[10] Andrew Cederdahl, "Torture and Magic Tricks," Humanist 69, no. 4 (July 2009): 14-15. 

[11] Anatol Lieven, America Right or Wrong: An Anatomy of American Nationalism (New York: Oxford University Press, USA, 2005), 5.

[12] I note here that I am not arguing a matter of constitutional law, but moral principle and worldview.

[13] This interpretation is based upon my readings of the work of William Cavanaugh, particularly Torture and Eucharist: Theology, Politics, and the Body of Christ (Challenges in Contemporary Theology) (Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 1998) and "`A fire strong enough to consume the house:'  The wars of religion and the rise of the state." Modern Theology 11, no. 4 (October 1995), 397-420.

[14] Randall Balmer, Thy Kingdom Come: How the Religious Right Distorts Faith and Threatens America (New York: Basic Books, 2007), 172-173.  The president of the Institute of Religion and Democracy is reported by Balmer to have been concerned that anti-torture campaigns were aimed exclusively at the Bush Administration.  Balmer argues that this is putting a mere public relations issue ahead of the more important moral issue.

[15] Sarah Pulliam, "Tough on Torture," Christianity Today 51, no. 5 (May 2007): 16-18.

[16] Evangelicals for Human Rights, “An Evangelical Declaration Against Torture:  Protecting Human Rights in an Age of Terror” (Nashville, TN, 2007), http://www.evangelicalsforhumanrights.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=9&Itemid=44 (accessed March 18, 2010)..