Religion of Peace Update: November 2006

I thought the questionnaire was interesting. That chart doesn't show all the columns - there's one for 'often' which isn't included. What I found interesting was that outside of Jordan (in 2005, curiously enough, it was at 24%, stark contrast to the 8% it returned to this year. What's happened since then?) support for 'often' was in single digits.

As for the other questions there are some really interesting ones, but they didn't ask everyone. I would have really liked to hear American opinions, for example, on question 38:

On a different subject, do you believe that groups of Arabs carried out the attacks against the United States (the World Trade Center and the Pentagon) on September 11 (2001) or don’t you believe this?

It would be interesting to see just what impact propaganda films like Short Change have had on the US population.

On the whole though there wasn't much in the report that was surprising. It was heartening to see a general decline in support for terrorists.

By significant, I mean near majorities or outright majorities.

In 2005, sure, but the survey also suggests those majorities have largely disappeared over the last year. Or have I misread the figures? I mean Jordan's support has halved (and absolute opposition quadrupled!) since 2005, Pakistani support has declined dramatically and Indonesia's is almost a third of what it was in 2002.

I think the survey is quite positive really, considering the events of the last year. Change is actually happening!

Thanks for providing the link. Look at how having the facts available got you a much better quality of response (yay cactoblasta). Hope I have some time to look at it later.

Waves, back to whip. Interesting survey.

... and in other news Christians for 1500 years killed Muslims, Jews, and anyone that dared actually use their brains in the name of religion and the furthering of Christian Doctrine and thought nothing of it. Spanish Inquisition, witch hunts, Friday the 13th anyone?

... and in other news, Christian leaders in the south have been supporting the Jews monetarily in Israel. Why? Because they believe that it will hasten Armageddon and the unbelievers will be washed from the face of the earth. (i.e. murdered in the name of God)

... and in other news, the Christian right seeks to ban gay marriage, bring back prayer in public school and basically make the United States a Christian state. If they ever gain power will the next Crusades be far behind??? Oh wait, Iraq... after all that nutbar named George Bush meets weekly with religious leaders (including a closet homosexual hooked on drugs and prostitutes) to get directions on what he should be doing in his administration....

Why exactly is this news? Religion breeds hatred of all others that do not believe the same thing because of the very concept of faith. If you can't prove what you believe, and there is no evidence that what you believe is true, and in fact most of it has been disproven by rational minds through science, what do you think is going to happen? You're going to feel threatened, which breeds fear. Fear and hatred are the same emotion largely so the result of proactive action against fear is hatred and ultimately the desire to destroy anyone who dares to believe different unprovable things than you. This isn't news, this is 9000 years of human history where 99% of all wars have been caused by religion.

Wow John Galt, equating objecting to gay marriage to suicide bombings. Nice.

Christians and Muslims in 1500 were killing each other.  The difference is that Christianity grew out of that.

If you can find a survey that demonstrates that a significant % of Christians support murdering innocents in the name of Jesus or whatever, feel free to post it. I thnk you'll have a difficult time finding any such evidence.

Not all religions are ideologies, John Galt.

As an agnostic, I have no particular care for Christianity or any other religion. But I can make the distinction between say Hinduism and Islam. For someone who's handle comes from Atlas Shrugged, you certainly don't behave as an objectivist or anything similar.

Not all religions are ideologies

How so?

It's a thought process, it's:

"An ideology is an organized collection of ideas."

WWW Link">Link

i·de·ol·o·gy (d-l-j, d-) Pronunciation Key

n. pl. i·de·ol·o·gies

1. The body of ideas reflecting the social needs and aspirations of an individual, group, class, or culture.

2. A set of doctrines or beliefs that form the basis of a political, economic, or other system.

[link="http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=ideologies"]WWW Link2

So, how can you say that religions are not ideologies, when it fits the definition

If you can find a survey that demonstrates that a significant % of Christians support murdering innocents in the name of Jesus or whatever, feel free to post it. I thnk you'll have a difficult time finding any such evidence.

Granted, as a whole it's not like that, however there have been christian bombers and such, i.e. abortion clinic bombers. So, you can't really say that it has grown out of christianity when it still exists. It may have grown up, and shrugged most of it off, but...it still exists.

Because they believe that it will hasten Armageddon and the unbelievers will be washed from the face of the earth. (i.e. murdered in the name of God)

What's wrong with believing that G-d will kill unbelievers Himself?

For someone who's handle comes from Atlas Shrugged, you certainly don't behave as an objectivist or anything similar.

Ha!

What's wrong with believing that G-d will kill unbelievers Himself?

I personally find it hard to believe, that a God who preaches compassion and love...would strike down non-believers. It's...well, unbecoming and hypocritical.

~L

Brad, you just became one of my favorite bloggers. Nice reply.

The whole point is that when fanatical Christians blew up abortion clinics they were roundly denounced by other Christians, caught by the police, and put in jail. It's obvious from these poll results that Islam embraces its lunatic fringe rather than distancing itself from it...which means the lunatics aren't "fringe" at all.

This is something that most Americans (and heck, most Westerners) just don't want to think about, because the consequences are terrible no matter what actually happens. The fanatics are in control. They kill moderates who call for peace with non-Muslims. If they stay on the path of jihad against the rest of the world, a whole lot of people are going to die. It will not be avoidable.

"Violence against civilian targets in order to defend islam can be justified"
=
"intentionally murdering innocents in the name of Islam"

...hmm. Not sure that you interprete this the same way as the people interviewed here. If that was the original question. Anyway, in light of recent happenings in Beit Hanoun, wonder what would come out if they substituted "Islam" with "Israel"

I think you're overdramatizing a bit here. Just a thought.

Better put me on that blacklist again   

Décidément, le ridicule ne tue plus !!!

Corio: Note the phrase "civilian targets". The poll wasn't talking about accidental deaths of civilians. It was asking how many people supported the deliberate targeting of civilians in defense of Islam. And of course, we all know how easily "Islam" can be offended; just ask Salmon Rushdie or the Danish cartoon publishers.

Never said it was. I merely pointed out that the question on the survey might evoke a different response than Draginol's interpretation of it. And yes, there are always zealots that will find almost anything other than their own views offensive. So?

The whole point is that when fanatical Christians blew up abortion clinics they were roundly denounced by other Christians, caught by the police, and put in jail.

The whole point is that when fanatical Muslims blew up the Sari Club in Bali they were roundly denounced by other Muslims, caught by the police, put in jail and then executed.

As you can see, Muslims treat terrorism very seriously in some countries.

The fanatics are in control. They kill moderates who call for peace with non-Muslims. If they stay on the path of jihad against the rest of the world, a whole lot of people are going to die. It will not be avoidable.

The survey figures don't suggest this. If anything they suggest the moderates are taking control. Where are you getting your evidence?

By the way, you'll need to look at the questionnaire itself to see the poll questions. The charts in general are unrepresentative. link: http://pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/253topline.pdf

Speaking of which I wish I could have seen (and understood) the multilingual versions. I know personally the difficulty of translating complex survey questions into foreign languages, particularly non-Romantic languages. It'd be interesting how they dealt with the issues there - ie how do you transpose a concept like suicide bomber? It doesn't exist in every language, so it might have to be explained. For example Indonesian has an equivalent - pembom - but it can also mean a regular everyday bomber.

Read the full report for the horrifying full stats.

Oh i did, at least the parts that pertain to this thread anyway and what is horrifying is the way you massacred the stats and poll to fit your own racist agenda.

I dont see anywhere a definition of what "in defence of Islam" actually means to "them" or "us". What's considered a threat to Islam?

Im sure if you were to take a survey that asked Americans "Do you believe civilian casualties are acceptable when attacking a target in defence of Americas national interest?" an over whelming majority would report back "Yes" Absolutely.

Do you believe 30,000 civilian casualties are acceptable in the war in Iraq?

I like the subtle distortion in your paraphrasing from "violence against civilian targets" to "intentionally murdering innocents". In fact given the definition of paraphrasing you couldn't actually call it that at all. Did you do that to make it seem more visceral?

You've also condenced 3 different degrees of acceptable down into 1. I.e Often Justified / Sometimes Justified / Rarely Justifed now just becomes Acceptable. As In Always. Much easier to stack the stats and draw on an emotional response that way isn't it?

And you've also twisted in "defence of Islam" into "In the name of Islam". i.e From defender to aggressor. Nice.

And just to be clear what you phrase as "In many Islam countries" is drawn from a poll of 10 muslim communities around the world of which only 3 responded with the views you attempt to outline right?

By significant, I mean near majorities or outright majorities

Whats significant is the overall trend away from any kind of feelings in the direction of violence against civilian targets and the fact that you have chosen to completely ignore it in your interpretation.

I dunno why you just dont write an article entitled "I hate Muslims, I really fucking hate them" and be done with it. Because its clear that you do.

Granted, as a whole it's not like that, however there have been christian bombers and such, i.e. abortion clinic bombers. So, you can't really say that it has grown out of christianity when it still exists. It may have grown up, and shrugged most of it off, but...it still exists.

To equate Christianity with the results displayed in this article simply because there have been Christian bombers (what? a couple of people to abortion clinics in the 1990s?) is disgusting.

We're talking not about a couple of whackos here. We're talking about MILLIONS of people who think it is acceptable to murder innocent people to "defend" Islam.

Oh i did, at least the parts that pertain to this thread anyway and what is horrifying is the way you massacred the stats and poll to fit your own racist agenda. I dont see anywhere a definition of what "in defence of Islam" actually means to "them" or "us". What's considered a threat to Islam? Im sure if you were to take a survey that asked Americans "Do you believe civilian casualties are acceptable when attacking a target in defence of Americas national interest?" an over whelming majority would report back "Yes" Absolutely. Do you believe 30,000 civilian casualties are acceptable in the war in Iraq? I like the subtle distortion in your paraphrasing from "violence against civilian targets" to "intentionally murdering innocents". In fact given the definition of paraphrasing you couldn't actually call it that at all. Did you do that to make it seem more visceral? You've also condenced 3 different degrees of acceptable down into 1. I.e Often Justified / Sometimes Justified / Rarely Justifed now just becomes Acceptable. As In Always. Much easier to stack the stats and draw on an emotional response that way isn't it? And you've also twisted in "defence of Islam" into "In the name of Islam". i.e From defender to aggressor. Nice. And just to be clear what you phrase as "In many Islam countries" is drawn from a poll of 10 muslim communities around the world of which only 3 responded with the views you attempt to outline right?

Why is it that dumb people have to use the word racist to describe things that obviously have nothing to do with race?

Islam is a religion/ideology. It is not a race. Anyone can be a Muslim. Even you. 

Saying that someone is racist for opposing Islamism is like saying someone is racism for opposing Communism or Nazism. 

Im sure if you were to take a survey that asked Americans "Do you believe civilian casualties are acceptable when attacking a target in defence of Americas national interest?" an over whelming majority would report back "Yes" Absolutely. Do you believe 30,000 civilian casualties are acceptable in the war in Iraq?

OR you could actually have a poll like what was just presented:

"Do you believe it okay to target civilians in order to defend US interests can be justified" I suspect you would find that the results would be incredibly low. I.e. low single digits. 

Is there ANYONE here, a single person who thinks it is "sometimes" justifiable to target civilians to defend US interests.  The key word here is interests not the US since the question isn't about defending your house, home or nation but rather an ideology/interest/religion.  

So yes, please, anyone reading this, if YOU think it is okay to target civilians for US interests speak up.  I know I certainly don't support targeting civilians for US interests.

30,000 Iraqi civilians have died. How many by US forces? How many intentionally by US forces?  The poll isn't very complicated, it asks if it's okay to TARGET civilians. Not if it is acceptable if civilians happen to die in the process of defending something. TARGET is the operative word.

I like the subtle distortion in your paraphrasing from "violence against civilian targets" to "intentionally murdering innocents". In fact given the definition of paraphrasing you couldn't actually call it that at all. Did you do that to make it seem more visceral? You've also condenced 3 different degrees of acceptable down into 1. I.e Often Justified / Sometimes Justified / Rarely Justifed now just becomes Acceptable. As In Always. Much easier to stack the stats and draw on an emotional response that way isn't it?

Please let me know what the distinction is between targeting civilians and murdering innocents? First, I don't see any distinction. Secondly, the gist of the article was pretty clear -- when is it okay to blow up busses and restraunts in order to murder civilians in the name of Islam?

Given that I posted the actual poll, I wasn't hiding anything. I think most people can make the conclusion that you either are against it or you are in favor of it. To me, the degrees are kind of irrelevant.  I'm willing to come right out and say that I don't support targeting civilians for ANY ideology or concept under any circumstances.  I think it's a yes or no type thing and expressed it as such.

I dunno why you just dont write an article entitled "I hate Muslims, I really fucking hate them" and be done with it. Because its clear that you do.

I don't hate Muslims. I don't really "hate" anything.  I loathe Islam as an ideology and will continue to do what I can in my own small way to make sure are aware that it is Islamism that we are fighting against and to make sure PC propaganda hasn't made people dismiss the threat that Islamism poses to our way of life.

Acording to the poll you posted, the number who suport violence against civilian tagets have gone down in Pakistan, Jordan and Indonesia, while they have gone up a little in Turkey. Those numbers do not sound like horrible numbers. Unless I am reading the charts horribly wrong, I do not see the majorities your talking about. Except in Jordan, Egypt, and Nigeria, the majority believe violence against civilians can NEVER be justified. That is the exact opposite of what you are talking about. I do not see a majority.

Islamism that we are fighting against

Eh, NO.

It is terrorism we are fighting. Not Islam. It is the blood shed that is being spilled by so called muslims (who have been denoucned by other muslims btw).

It was terrorists, backed by a perverted form of islam, that attacked the twin towers, who run AQ, etc...


~L

I don't hate Muslims. I don't really "hate" anything. I loathe Islam as an ideology

Ummm, that makes no sense.

So, you don't "hate" those who practice, but you loathe what they practice...but...how can you not loathe those who practice it, while you loathe the ideoloy?

How about the muslim terrorists? Do you loathe them?

Why is it that dumb people have to use the word racist to describe things that obviously have nothing to do with race?

I think you'll find its just as often used to describe discrimination based on religion. In fact if i define:racist in Google I'll get :

discriminatory especially on the basis of race or religion
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Saying that someone is racist for opposing Islamism is like saying someone is racism for opposing Communism or Nazism

No its not the same at all because communism or nazism dont fall under "any" defintion of racism. They are neither races nor religions, they are political idealogies.

I don't hate Muslims. I don't really "hate" anything. I loathe Islam as an ideology and will continue to do what I can in my own small way to make sure are aware that it is Islamism that we are fighting against and to make sure PC propaganda hasn't made people dismiss the threat that Islamism poses to our way of life.

Oh cmon. Racism is a discrimination based on race or religion. You loathe Islam, you believe you're in a fight against it, you believe it poses a threat to your way of life and yet you're actually going to try and suggest that you dont discriminate against it? Gimme a break. Like i said just call a spade a spade.

Ummm, that makes no sense. So, you don't "hate" those who practice, but you loathe what they practice...but...how can you not loathe those who practice it, while you loathe the ideoloy?

You don't understand how one can seperate a concept from a person? I really can't help you with that.

Oh cmon. Racism is a discrimination based on race or religion.

Scoff: You are too dumb to participate on my personal blog postings.  I don't know what's worse, that you would attempt to stifle discussion by calling people racists or that you don't understand what racism is. Sorry, time for you to go away.