The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support torture

[CptSternn]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/04/30/rel...html?JesusWept

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The more often Americans go to church, the more likely they are to support the torture of suspected terrorists, according to a new survey.

More than half of people who attend services at least once a week -- 54 percent -- said the use of torture against suspected terrorists is "often" or "sometimes" justified. Only 42 percent of people who "seldom or never" go to services agreed, according to the analysis released Wednesday by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life.

White evangelical Protestants were the religious group most likely to say torture is often or sometimes justified -- more than six in 10 supported it. People unaffiliated with any religious organization were least likely to back it. Only four in 10 of them did.

The analysis is based on a Pew Research Center survey of 742 American adults conducted April 14-21. It did not include analysis of groups other than white evangelicals, white non-Hispanic Catholics, white mainline Protestants and the religiously unaffiliated, because the sample size was too small. See results of the survey »

The president of the National Association of Evangelicals, Leith Anderson, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The survey 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?"
advertisement

Roughly half of all respondents -- 49 percent -- said it is often or sometimes justified. A quarter said it never is.

The religious group most likely to say torture is never justified was Protestant denominations -- such as Episcopalians, Lutherans and Presbyterians -- categorized as "mainline" Protestants, in contrast to evangelicals. Just over three in 10 of them said torture is never justified. A quarter of the religiously unaffiliated said the same, compared with two in 10 white non-Hispanic Catholics and one in eight evangelicals.

[Tam Li Hua]

*facepalm*

Oh those crazy conservatives.

[Anima_Severem]

I'm a white American Protestant and I don't support torture...

Who the hell supports torture anyway?

[Tam Li Hua]

Anima: Extremely cruel people, I would think.

Something tells me that this "research" was most likely a little biased, but I could be wrong.

[Solumina]

Originally Posted by Anima_Severem

Who the hell supports torture anyway?

People who are naturally fearful and don't care about what happens to others as long as they are safe, these are exactly the same type of people who flock to evangelical churches. It isn't so much that they support torture as it is that they don't really care what it takes to feel safe, they are the same type of people who don't mind giving up civil liberties so that the government can "catch terrorists."

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Tam Li Hua

Anima: Extremely cruel people, I would think.

Something tells me that this "research" was most likely a little biased, but I could be wrong.

You are. In both sentences.

[Drake Dun]

Originally Posted by Tam Li Hua

Something tells me that this "research" was most likely a little biased, but I could be wrong.

The Pew Forum is essentially unimpeachable. It's on par with Gallup.

[JCC]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

You are. In both sentences.

What's wrong with saying that cruel people would support torture?

[Tam Li Hua]

Originally Posted by Godslayer Jillian

You are. In both sentences.

I don't see how; I don't support torture, I'm not a conservative, and casting doubt on a random poll isn't cruel.

Silly silly Jilly.

[Tam Li Hua]

Originally Posted by Drake Dun

The Pew Forum is essentially unimpeachable. It's on par with Gallup.

I've never heard of it until now. Like I said, I could be wrong, but it just sounds iffy to me. :/

[Drake Dun]

Keep the name in mind. The next time you're consuming any news from any media source and statistics about religion in the U.S. come up, there's about a 90% chance that "Pew Forum" will be in the same sentence. They're the recognized authority on it.

[Xombie]

Yesterday, my English class had a discussion about torturing suspected terrorists and such. I didn't think of it then, but the majority of the students who supported torture are, in fact, frequent church-goers, or at least to my knowledge.

[Tam Li Hua]

Drake Dun: I'll keep that in mind. =)

Xombie: Sadly, I'd have to admit that I'm not that surprised.

[HavelockV]

Perhaps it doesn't mean anything, but when looking at the numbers, I noticed 561 (weekly/monthly/few times a year) churchgoers were surveyed, while only 168 seldom/never churchgoers were surveyed. It seems that this smaller sample size, coupled with a greater percentage of those who didn't know/refused to answer (5%), might increase the potential margin of error and not give as accurate a representation of that particular group's views on the subject. Of course, this may be attributed to the natural distribution of the frequency with which those surveyed attend mass, but it would be interesting to see if the results would have been any different if approximately the same number of people from each respective churchgoing category had been surveyed.

[Renatus]

This survey is flawed. Like they said they only surveyed white people, this leaves a large margin of error.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by HavelockV

Perhaps it doesn't mean anything, but when looking at the numbers, I noticed 561 (weekly/monthly/few times a year) churchgoers were surveyed, while only 168 seldom/never churchgoers were surveyed. It seems that this smaller sample size, coupled with a greater percentage of those who didn't know/refused to answer (5%), might increase the potential margin of error and not give as accurate a representation of that particular group's views on the subject. Of course, this may be attributed to the natural distribution of the frequency with which those surveyed attend mass, but it would be interesting to see if the results would have been any different if approximately the same number of people from each respective churchgoing category had been surveyed.

It means a lot actually. This is the best response to this thread in terms of objectivity that I have seen.

It is like the Crest toothpaste statement that "4 out of 5 dentists surveyed recommend Crest Toothpaste".

Riiiiighhhhht.

[Drake Dun]

Interesting point. I guess what they did was start with one big undifferentiated sample set (which was presumably large enough for statistical purposes) and then break that down into smaller groups based on their answers.

You can see the breakdown here:

http://pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=156

The smallest sample size is 94. Usually with stuff like this I'm used to seeing things in the three or four digits, so that does give me pause. I don't know how to actually do the math to determine how large the sample size needs to be... can anyone help us out there?

I guess it's possible that they screwed up, but I kind of doubt it. Like I said, they're basically the authority on this stuff. And if you notice their numbers and the notation at the bottom of that page, they excluded certain religious affiliations from the data on account of not having sufficiently large sample sets. So they clearly had the issue in mind.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by Tam Li Hua

and casting doubt on a random poll isn't cruel.

.... what?

[CptSternn]

Pew and Gallup as Drake said above are the main groups which do all the major polling for all major companies, TV networks, and the US government.

In this case yes, they did select a certain group, but that was the whole idea.

White, protestant, evangelicals is who they were polling so your not going to find any Latino Catholics in there or any other groups. Thats the whole point of this poll was to check out the feelings of one group, per the subject title.

What they were polling was the kind of people who like Jerry Falwell and you would see in films like 'Jesus Camp'.

The bottom line is a large chunk of the middle class white America falls into this category. These are the same people who vote republican and think bush is part of the 'moral majority'.

The irony is, as the article states, that the more right-wing Bible thumping Christian conservative you tend to be, the more likely you think torturing people is ok.

[HavelockV]

CptSternn, I can understand clearly that Pew was trying to target a specific demographic in their survey. However, I assert again that unless the sample size is equal for each category (in this case churchgoing frequency), then the study has the potential to deliver flawed results. Probably a more ideal situation in this case would have been to poll individuals first on their churchgoing habits. Then, select, say, 200 individuals from each category and poll only these individuals about their views on torture.

And personally, I think you are using a rather large brush with which to paint those surveyed. Sweeping generalizations are hardly a fair way to classify people.

[blackwater1110]

Originally Posted by HavelockV

CptSternn, I can understand clearly that Pew was trying to target a specific demographic in their survey. However, I assert again that unless the sample size is equal for each category (in this case churchgoing frequency), then the study has the potential to deliver flawed results. Probably a more ideal situation in this case would have been to poll individuals first on their churchgoing habits. Then, select, say, 200 individuals from each category and poll only these individuals about their views on torture.

And personally, I think you are using a rather large brush with which to paint those surveyed. Sweeping generalizations are hardly a fair way to classify people.

Have you ever taken a statistics class, or are you just pulling all this out of your ass?

The whole point of statistics is to make sweeping generalizations based on a small amount of information.

In order for those generalizations to be accurate, you have to have the element of randomness. That means you can't discard results. So if you were to call 200 random people and they all said that they were of a certain religious affiliation, you couldn't throw out the following results until you get enough non-churchgoers, or your data pool would be SERIOUSLY flawed. That's why they probably had a LOT more churchgoers than non-churchgoers: they had to keep picking from among the general population until they got a statistically significant number of non-churchgoers; it just so happens that they picked up a lot more churchgoers in the process.

With the Gallup, they publish all of their results on their website, including the method used, margin of error, etc. I would guess that if the Pew is of the same caliber, then they do the same. So, if you are really interested in how accurate the results of this survey is, why don't you look there?

[HavelockV]

Originally Posted by blackwater1110

Have you ever taken a statistics class, or are you just pulling all this out of your ass?

The whole point of statistics is to make sweeping generalizations based on a small amount of information.

Regarding to the "sweeping generalizations" part of my comment, I was referring to CptSternn's description of "bible thumpers" and
"people who like Jerry Falwell and you would see in films like 'Jesus Camp'", more than any statistical result presented thus far.

I took a couple statistics courses several years ago, but after reflection, as well as your gently-worded rebuke, I realize that my suggestion for an alternate method of conducting the survey might be flawed. Consider me duly chastened in that regard.

[blackwater1110]

Originally Posted by HavelockV

Regarding to the "sweeping generalizations" part of my comment, I was referring to CptSternn's description of "bible thumpers" and
"people who like Jerry Falwell and you would see in films like 'Jesus Camp'", more than any statistical result presented thus far.

I took a couple statistics courses several years ago, but after reflection, as well as your gently-worded rebuke, I realize that my suggestion for an alternate method of conducting the survey might be flawed. Consider me duly chastened in that regard.

As to my 'sweeping generalizations' rant, consider my foot firmly lodged in mouth for that less-than-sociable retort. Besides, your eloquent phrases are so adorable as to make it impossible to stay mad at you.

[HumanePain]

Originally Posted by blackwater1110

As to my 'sweeping generalizations' rant, consider my foot firmly lodged in mouth for that less-than-sociable retort. Besides, your eloquent phrases are so adorable as to make it impossible to stay mad at you.

Haha! that is what endears him to me as well. Funny how a trait that is appealing to some is the reason others don't like him. In then end be your self because you can't please everyone.

[Despanan]

See, this is one of those correlation /= causation things that everyone keeps talking about and idiots keep ignoring.