Thinking of fear, I wonder why the Churches do not have more to offer in this discussion in making clear and unequivocal condemnation of this whole illegal war and torture saga. Bishops have a loud voice that could be used to keep these issues in frame in the media. So why do we not hear daily of their protests, leader articles, media appearances, or even statements of individual conscience? This is known as being relevant.

No coincidence it seems that Christians are more likely fervent supporters of torture.

There have been a few dissents and protests, e.g. a torture awareness month in 2006 (Episcopalian), also John Paul II was outspoken (RC). But the total 'noise level' is far too low and equivocal to counter the fearmongerers, lobbyists and right wing bloviators who (even now) so saturate the media.

So my question is: where are they ??? Don't our religious leaders have both the right and duty to be engaged?

This is how it works ... Keep up the noise and make these criminals never be at ease.

Glenn, I agree wholeheartedly with your analysis and am one of many who experience this in microcosm. I cannot pursuade my own father out of the pro war camp, his blockers are fear of terrorists and trust in the governmental processes. Its frustrating and depressing at a personal level to face such an unassailable wall of denial.

So ... maybe the group identification is more important than evidence and logic. We see this every day in the branding of products: marketing is the key element more often than whether the product is good or bad.

My point is that we need the right medium for the message - marketing advice in short, the dark arts of advertising and social influence. (As for my father, its probably because I'm an engineer that I'm doomed!)

@drdave

It was obvious that these folks are truly secure in their faith, and hence are not “threatened” by someone else not agreeing with them. I see the same thing in political discussions- conservatives who are fine that you disagree, vs. those who take it as a personal attack.

Yes indeed, and these are exactly the people we must set about communicating with.

Even if one party is deaf, we mush find a way to (gradually) build trust and find an opening. Behaviours like tribalism and exceptionalism are shown in all levels of life. For example Glenn focuses on adolescents, these are analogue circumstances that give a less threatening way to talk through the logic and maybe (my leap of faith) start to build a willingness to listen in and think afresh on wider issues.

That should be Bush's epitaph.

I think there is a great deal of ignorance about relationships. Sex associates vital (literally) endocrinological / hormonal changes and also a psychological / affirmative role in trust between partners, monogamous or otherwise. This is why there is going to be some line of fallout both for the individual and their social group. They do need support, but better be aware and beware in the first place.

Why does this all have that slow motion feel of a crash happening? I saw a crash once just ahead of me, the funny thing was how there was no sound at all.

Nothing new in New York Times, only wash in Washington Post.

Historians please has any leader of ever turned back once the cookie jar was opened, I mean in particular at a critical stage of descent to empire / authoritarianism?

Glenn, it seems the same crew and their network are again and again behind this media wash over. They also slime truth tellers (e.g. You know, actual reporting). I know I was turned away from Juan Cole for ages because he was slimed in Time. So many people would gain from an easy 'commentator tracker', and let the right have their own rival site, but at least widely published commentators can be marked (affiliations, track record ...). It seems your group could open more eyes of the sleeping majority of good people that way than any other.