(no subject)

[rivka]

Photo gallery of churches, synagogues, convents, meeting houses, and mosques across America displaying banners that simply say "torture is wrong."

It's nice to see these 125 pictures, but I'm left with the question: why doesn't every single house of worship in America have a similar sign?

Comments

[kalmn.livejournal.com]

because there are a lot of people, and therefore houses of worship, who don't think it's wrong, who even think that their god approves of it.

i realize you're likely being hypothetical here. but pls have an answer anyhow.

[johnpalmer.livejournal.com]

I think most folks who don't kick up a fuss about torture just don't think about it, or don't really believe it, or don't realize that a thing that doesn't sound too bad when you're free and safe can be extremely nasty when you're completely at the mercy of an unfriendly power. e.g., "Cold cell? Big whoop; I've gone camping in sub-zero temperatures!" Sure... and a camper could just say "screw this!" and pack up camp and go home. Or, if s/he couldn't, it was at least something s/he'd chosen to do. Further, s/he's not locked in a cell surrounded by people with guns.

Then again, there probably are a good many people who approve of torture as well.

[tea-dragon.livejournal.com]

Those pictures don't show all of them of course- we have one at our church too.

It boggles my mind, however, that there are people who think torture is right.

[bosssio.livejournal.com]

I doubt many people think "torture" is wrong. It is akin to laziness, greed, cruelty, rape, murder and exploitation. By its very definition, torture is a very bad thing (tm).

What is more debatable - and is hence the crux of the matter - is the definition of torture and what counts as torture and what doesn't. Waterboarding, torture or just "vigorous investigation"? THAT is where the real question lies.

From this standpoint, it is even more astonishing that more houses of worship don't put up such as sign, since being anti-torture AND accepting waterboarding as a legitimate technique for the US Government to use does not actually require cognitive dissonance as long as you define torture very precisely...

Being anti-torture is like being anti-"bad things happening to good people". Pretty universal and pretty meaningless at the same time, unless you define your terms.

Ah, the lies we tell ourselves to let us sleep at night...

(sorry, feeling cynical today).

[bosssio.livejournal.com]

I doubt many people think "torture" is wrong.

ARGH, I meant I doubt many people think "torture" is right.

must.check.posts.more.closely.before.posting...

[tea-dragon.livejournal.com]

Hmm, I read it as "right" without even thinking about it, shows how carefully *I* read :)

[ratphooey.livejournal.com]

The Philadelphia Ethical Society, where our funky alterna-synagogue proudly flies one.

[rivka.livejournal.com]

Our church is on page 2. It's hard to see the sign, which for that picture was temporarily placed on the iron fence around the front of the church. We later moved it to the front door of the Parish Hall, which is on one of Baltimore's most prominent streets. It looks good there.

[gjules.livejournal.com]

The UU church I sing at in Quincy, MA ran afoul of the city when they tried to fly a banner for equal marriage rights. They had to get the ACLU involved (and yes, the banner went up in the end). This was during the term of our previous, not-at-all-missed mayor, who also went on the record as saying he thought hosting a program to feed the homeless was an inappropriate use for the church. (No, really.)

I wouldn't be surprised if we weren't the only congregation to find a controversial banner blocked on the grounds of "historic preservation".

I'm not sure if the church has an anti-torture banner up yet. I hope so. I'll have to go by and look.

[juliansinger.livejournal.com]

*peers at your ex-mayor warily*

[naomikritzer]

why doesn't every single house of worship in America have a similar sign?

I really dislike this question, not because I approve of torture in any way, shape, or form, but the "why don't you have a sign? does that mean you think it's okay to XXX?" attitude leads to things like yards with 16 separate yard signs declaring opposition to torture, war, racism, injustice, and global warming while declaring support for watershed-friendly and chemical-free yards, gay marriage, the nurse's union, and the proposal to renew the school levy.

I am opposed to torture, war, racism, injustice, and global warming, and I support watershed-friendly chemical-free yards, gay marriage, nurse's unions, and school funding levies, and I don't think my lack of yard signs should be taken to mean that I am a prisoner-waterboarding, warmongering racist oppressor who probably drives an SUV in between clubbing baby seals, breaking up nurse's unions, and bashing gays.

[rivka.livejournal.com]

Okay, you have a point. Sorry.

[ailbhe]

You could use your seal-club to bash the gays, unless that would be too ecofriendly - perhaps you need to use separate nonrecyclable clubs for each?

[naomikritzer]

Definitely single-use clubs. Inside vast quantities of disposable plastic packaging!

You know, it strikes me that these signs almost certainly make more of a statement in a conservative community where it is a courageous stance.

Saying you oppose torture in South Minneapolis is kind of like saying you're pro-gay-marriage in San Francisco. You could find people who oppose you, but they're in a distinct minority. You know that rumor going around that Obama took his oath of office on a Koran? There really is a black guy in congress who took his oath on a Koran -- my Congressional Representative, Keith Ellison. Where I live, a pro-gay-marriage pro-choice Muslim black guy was elected to Congress with over 60% of the vote and no one was surprised. OF COURSE churches here oppose torture. It would be shocking if you found a church that didn't.

(Ellison used Thomas Jefferson's Koran, loaned to him by the National Archive, which IMO was the perfect response to the minor controversy stirred up by the kind of idiots who also use single-use seal clubs.)

[wcg.livejournal.com]

I know the Catholic churches I went to wouldn't put up a sign for any reason. Not even one naming the church. So I suspect that custom is at least partly why there aren't many Catholic parishes willing to put up a banner like this. (Though they may well put one up *inside* the church.)

[wild-patience.livejournal.com]

I don't know where you went to church, but I noticed a lot of Catholic churches in my diocese (San Jose, CA diocese) on the web site Rivka linked to. I know our Bishop, P. J. McGrath, is very concious of social justice issues and would fully support the signs. My mother's parish is in the photo log but not my own. I wonder how recent the signs went up. If we don't have one by Sunday, I will ask our pastor.

[wcg.livejournal.com]

My experiences were in the Archdioceses of Detroit and Tucson.

[ailbhe]

I choose to hope it's the same reason they don't have signs up saying "Killing your neighbours and serving them up as barbecue is wrong."

Wrong, or Moral Issue?

[dragon3.livejournal.com]

I notice that a lot of those banners say "Torture is a Moral Issue" which is far from unequivocal opposition, even though both banners trace to the same source.

http://www.nrcat.org/storage/nrcat/documents/banner_designs_2__03_09_08.pdf

I wonder how many of those congregations were not able to agree that torture is always wrong.

Re: Wrong, or Moral Issue?

[curiousangel.livejournal.com]

I was a member of our church's Board of Trustees when the issue came up of getting a banner as part of the program. We were given a choice -- NRCAT could provide a generic version of either "Torture Is A Moral Issue" or "Torture Is Wrong", or we could get one customized with our church's name added for a few dollars more. As I recall, the cost of the banner was about $175 customized, and $150 generic, but I may be a little off in my recollection.

Our discussion on which banner to get (which was almost certainly not the same discussion some other churches may have had) hinged on whether we just wanted the short, definitive, three-word, not-gonna-fuckin'-argue-this statement, or if we wanted to establish that we DID see it as a moral issue, not just a legal one, and wanted others to do so as well. We ultimately decided to just go with the short version as we figured the discussion was pretty much settled in our area, but I would not have been vigorously opposed to the other banner either. I suspect that many churches may have decided to go with the attempt to frame the discussion, but I never heard from anyone about breakdowns of one vs. the other.

Re: Wrong, or Moral Issue?

[(Anonymous)]

I wasn't really ignoring you, but I was moving, like into a new place, so....

Thank you for the perspective from at least one congregation. You brought up a point I didn't think of -- the idea that "wrong" could be seen as about legal/illegal rather than ethical/unethical. I read

"Torture is Wrong"

to mean torture is never an ethical choice, and

"Torture is a Moral Issue"

to mean torture is unethical unless there is sufficient moral reason to resort to torture, suggesting that there may be a moral justification for some torture. I'm not sure if torture is ever expeditious, but I'm personally sure it is always wrong.

Re: Wrong, or Moral Issue?

[dragon3.livejournal.com]

Sorry, that was me... moving issues seem to have scrambled the id

[mjlayman.livejournal.com]

I haven't seen any here, and I went by our UU today*. What we do have is Episcopal and Methodist churches flying banners that say "Seek Peace and Pursue It." I see smaller signs in yards with that, too.

*The UU is in a historic building in Old Town but it has had banners up before.

[mjlayman.livejournal.com]

I'm still behind on the WashPost and their 6/14 Religion section has a brief article on this (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/13/AR2008061303289.html) It's the second one down.