blegh is right. but on the other hand, you know what Jesus said: "the ends justify the means." wait, no he didn't...
I wonder if the numbers would be different had Jesus died on a waterboard, or if forty lashes minus one and crucifixion were employed at Gitmo. Good thing God has good taste, because I sure wouldn't want to wear a waterboard around my neck.
but then they still wouldn't complain that it was torture, they'd complain because it was blasphemy.
I heard Franciscan priest Richard Rohr speak on this very thing last Friday; he connected it to the atonement and how we view it. Was Jesus' death necessary (somebody had to pay) or was it a gift (display the heart of God)? It may sound like semantic hokey-pokey or outright blasphemy, but it was thought provoking. He cited evangelicals loving embrace of Mel Gibson's The Passion...
A counter post from yesterday's paper:http://www.mlive.com/living/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2009/04/evangelicals_including_rob_bel.html
The author of that piece is fanning flames. He’s characterizing those who feel that torture has a place in some circumstances as an “almost cheerleaderish embrace” of violence. I cannot take anything he says seriously at this point.
James - look at the data at the pew research site he links to. How would you characterize it?
NPR had an interrogator on yesterday who commented that he used a different tactic to get info: being nice. and it worked. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103627997) He was able to extract real information on terrorism cells. Hmmm, what was that thing our moms told us about playing nice in the sandbox? We are just in a really really big sandbox, but the same rule applies.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delaney, when I see the link, I see that the two categories of approval are worded as "can often be justified" and "can sometimes be justified". When someone takes the leap from that to "cheerleaderlike embrace of violence", I consider that to be a mischaracterization of the opinions of those who responded to the survey, and such a misrepresentation does fit my criteria of fanning the flames.
James, that's true. I wasn't defending the "cheerleader" remark. But when you compare the evangelical protestant group to even other Christian groups, there's a significant difference there. That's why I asked - how would YOU characterize it?
I don't know how I would characterize it. I would probably need a couple of days to think about it. But I am not reacting to how it should be interpreted. One could talk all day about how things should be. My problem is specifically with this author, who adopts what is just short of a National Enquirer-like sensationalistic method of interpreting the poll results. Doing so is inherently dishonest, and I cannot take the rest of the article seriously because of the poor foundation on which it was laid.