A couple of great lines:
"It is the kind of statement you might expect from the Khmer Rouge, or from the Chinese Communists who perfected “stress positions”, or from the Nazis, whose Gestapo pioneered “enhanced interrogation”, i.e. brutal torture that would leave no physical traces. Except it’s worse than that. Even totalitarian regimes have publicly denied their torture. Their reticence and lies are some small concession of vice to the appearance of virtue. Not Palin – who wants to celebrate brutal torture as the American way."And this after he notes that evangelicals still support torture at somewhere around 60%:
Support for torture is highest among those who attend church at least weekly and lowest for those who rarely or never go to church. In America, torture is a Christian value. And some people wonder why I prefer to term “Christianist” to describe these people.This was my canary in the mineshaft. I thought maybe I should be more generous and extend to people the right to be fearful in the aftermath of 9-11. But after 13 years, I thought that would have ebbed, and the people who flocked to Mel Gibson's torture film on Jesus would at least find some relative consistency on something this heinous. But Palin's remarks demonstrate how deeply the tribal affiliations run. Opposing torture, in that circle, has become akin to liberalism and speaking about climate change or evolution.
As I told a friend in an email, this is another little test. If evangelical Christianity cannot see this woman for the evil she is, then they can't see any evil in their midst, and still cling to the notion that premarital sex and gay marriage are the threats we face. This is disheartening.