According to a Pew Research poll released yesterday, 15% of Americans say torturing terror suspects is "often" justified, while 25% of Americans say torture is "never" justified. To make more sense of it than that, you need to distinguish "sometimes" and "rarely," figure out what "important information" means, and remember it will only happen to "suspected terrorists."
But the cross-tabs also looked at religion affiliation and practice, and as someone who considers myself "religious," the results were troubling. To quote a line from the 1960s: "I'm not like people like me."
Unfortunately Pew didn't do cross-tabs by Kossological sign, which means your intrepid Kossologist had to look at the stars to see how unlike the people like you you are.
More below the fold....
I'm Not Like People Like Me
Note: I've decided to put the previously announced "Moles & Holes" series on hold, because what I'd researched for the series feels outdated by the events of the week. Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter's party switch changes the political calculus, as President Obama has reportedly said he'll endorse Specter in 2010. I'm guessing Specter's support in getting Obama's nominees confirmed was part of that discussion. My apologies for any disappointment.
There may be bad, good, horrifying, confusing, or troubling news in yesterday's Pew Research Center poll on torture, depending on how you read it. And that's a case study in bad polling.
The bad news is that more Americans say torture of terror suspects is "often" or "sometimes" justified (total 49%) than those who say torture is "rarely" or "never" justified (total 47%). (Four percent refused to answer or had no opinion.)
The good news is that more Americans say torture is "never" justified (25%) than those who say torture is "often" justified (15%).
The horrifying news is that 71% of Americans say torture is at least "sometimes/rarely" justified. I put the "sometimes/rarely" together because, well, the wording is confusing.
A poll designed to confuse:
If "sometimes" is not "often," doesn't it mean "rarely?" If "rarely" is not "never," doesn't it mean "sometimes?" Yet Pew's story color codes "sometimes" with "often," and "rarely" with "never." Pew's coding makes sense only in terms of how the question was asked:
Torture to gain important information from suspected terrorists is justified: Often, Sometimes, Rarely, Never, Don't Know?
Setting aside the premise itself for a moment, the answer options seem designed more to confuse than to clarify. Given a choice of two extremes and some "middle" answer, people often choose the "middle." The more "middle" answers you offer, the more likely people will choose one of the "middles," and the less likely you'll get a majority opinion. That gives you a poll that either side can site as supporting its position ... by lumping the "middles" together with its side because they rejected the other extreme.
For example, Cliff May could argue the Pew poll shows seven-in-ten Americans agree with the Bush torture policy. May does argue that interrogation methods that might be called torture were used only "rarely." Were he to cite the Pew poll - and he hasn't to my knowledge - he could say that 71% of Americans say torture is justified at least "rarely." The 'split middle' polling practice all but guarantees a result that can be interpreted to support May's position.
A poll with a (mis)leading premise:
But look at that premise: "Torture to gain important information from suspected terrorists...."
Note the verb. Gain. Not extract - which sounds coercive, like, I dunno, torture - or even the neutral elicit. Gain. That's an emotionally positive verb. There's even a laundry detergent with that brand name. A verb chosen to lead survey respondents away from the most negative answer.
Now the direct object. Important information. Nice and vague, so it includes information like "Saddam Hussein has operational links to Al Qaeda." According to McClatchy, getting some captive to say that was the Bush administration's objective in pressuring CIA and military interrogators to use "harsher measures." The information was false - the CIA had already said so - but Bush needed it to be true in order to justify the Iraq War. Politically important false information, is still "important information."
Now the indirect object. From suspected terrorists. Again, nice and vague, and omitting that many of those "suspected terrorists" were innocent Afghanis turned in by bounty-seeking neighbors or rivals. But it clearly excludes, say, the person being surveyed. That "suspected terrorists" means the torture surely won't happen to you, and it's always easier to rationalize others' suffering.
Pew may as well have asked "Is torturing terrorists justified if it will save your life or the lives of your loved ones?" The question they asked is almost that (mis)leading.
Despite the flawed premise and the "split middle" response option, one could hope that in the United States, one of the most religious nations in the world, religious principles would veto torture out of hand. Oops.
People like me aren't like me.
I'm Catholic, and not Hispanic. Only one-in-five Americans like me are like me. That is, only 20% of non-Hispanic Catholics believe torture is "never" justified. At least I'm no longer an evangelical Protestant or I'd be even more troubled, as only 16% of evangelical Protestants believe torture is "never" justified. Among mainline Protestants and people with no religious affiliation, the "nevers" are 31% and 26% respectively.
Indeed, according to the Pew poll, the more often you go to church, the more likely you are answer that question "often" or "sometimes," the two responses Pew codes together. Of people who attend church "at least weekly," 54% said torture was "often" or "sometimes" justified. Among people who attend "monthly or a few times a year," those responses drop to 51%. And for people who go to church "seldom or never," those two responses plummet to 42%.
Some religious people find these facts uncomfortable, or even offensive. And I agree. But the responses are what they are. Despite the flaws in the poll - detailed above - the responses break down pretty clearly with respect to religion. That breakdown could mean the respondents are less likely to have read sources that have exposed the scope and purpose of the Bush torture policy. It could mean those respondents are less able to parse a (mis)leading question. Or it could mean that American Christendom has been hijacked by conservatism so completely that the moral values taught in the New Testament don't apply against the Bush administration.
Regardless, people like me aren't like me. Or I'm not like people like me. Often, sometimes, or rarely. Maybe never. I don't know.
+++++
Speaking of troubling people who aren't like you, at least you're probably not like the other people with your Kossological sign. Or so you should hope:
Taurus - Stop making that mistake. That other mistake was more entertaining to watch.
Gemini - Your dogma chases karmas. Maybe you should keep it on a leash.
Cancer - Your reasons for procrastinating are obsolete. Find new reasons, when you get around to it.
Leo - "Golf" is "flog" spelled backwards, except when you do it.
Virgo - Your red socks insist your purple socks belong in the left drawer with the blue socks.
Libra - Don't overlook the risks of ... oops. Sorry.
Scorpio - Wash your hands before, after, and while shaking hands. Or just bathe together.
Sagittarius - Good news! Oh wait. Sorry, that was for someone else.
Capricorn - Take bold risks for love. Shake hands with a Scorpio.
Aquarius - The dogma in the rearview mirror of your karma is owned by a Gemini. Don't slow down.
Pisces - There's nothing to say about you that others haven't already said. But let's review....
Aries - Recapitalizing your business might be a good idea, but recapitalizing your name iSN't.
+++++
Happy Friday!