Poll: Muslims, atheists most likely to reject violence

Originally posted by King Castle
when they use text to justify their actions from crusades, manifest destiny/genocide, abortion clinic bombings, gay bashing and so on.

now here is the part where someone comes in and says they werent real Christians. 🙄

Roll your eyes all you want but they are not. People who are proabortion are much more violent after all they are killing a human being and most christians are peaceful while you have others who sacified animals or people and go shooting up schools and worship fake gods who are known to be very violent. So does this answear your question? 🙂

Originally posted by red g jacks
i dont really understand

are you saying they're less likely to support targeting civilians because they're more likely to be from a country ran by a brutal regime, or because they're upper/middle class?

cause theoretically in my mind the poorer muslims who ended up in europe could have been from the very same regime and would have likely witnessed just as much (if not more) abuse.. though maybe i'm missing something here. (like maybe only rich muslims get to escape brutal regimes? i'm admittedly uninformed)

no, that is actually a really good point...

I suppose it has much less to do with escaping brutality and more to do with the integration into society, etc. Among a host of other reasons.

For instance, in North America, the constitutions have no clauses that protect "American" or "Canadian" culture, so there is very little conflict between people wanting to live as Muslims and Americans/Canadians. This has changed a bit since 9-11, but in America, and there are a number of stats that support this, Muslims tend to be even more integrated into society than most minority groups. This is why things like the hijab debate are really unheard of here.

The other part would be that having more money allows you to integrate anyways, so in the end, Muslim immigrants that end up in North America versus Europe are entering a society that is both more open to them and their culture, and they have more material means through which they can integrate.

Thinking about it though, I'm not sure why that would impact someone's proclivity toward targeting citizens, unless there is some reason to think that poverty or social integration impact that directly, however, the Christian results seem to suggest social integration is not part of it, as they are completely integrated into society (they are the mainstream) and they are more willing to accept the targeting of civilians... I can't speak to the poverty thing specifically, it would be interesting to see the christian numbers broken down by class. [maybe being part of the mainstream allows you to out-group all other people, blurring the distinction between enemy and civilian?]

It might just be a reaction to real world events, as there is a context to these questions that is not really talked about in the brief article I posted. If you ask a Muslim "Is it ok to target civilians?" it is likely they will either think of it in terms of Muslims targeting civilians with terrorism or civilians killed in Muslim nations by NATO, which it is easy to see why they would be against. Actually, now that I write that, I think it is almost certainly more a mixture of out-grouping by mainstream American society and a knee-jerk response from Muslims, rather than poverty or integration...

hmmmmm, good point indeed

Originally posted by ADarksideJedi
most christians are peaceful

...most of any religion are peaceful. A religion where the majority are violent would not last long. It doesn't shirk the fact that Christians more easily justify violence in this country.

Originally posted by chomperx9
im saying religion is not the main factor with christian's violence compared to muslims.

Originally posted by Mindship
👆

Self-reporting formats are notorious for respondent character inflation. I see Islamic overcompensation here; and for that matter, somewhat with atheists too, ie, a reaction to the hypocrisy of religion(ism).

As a side note, if you were an atheist, would you justify anything with religion?

Originally posted by Quark_666
80% of the U.S. population is Christian; 80% of the prison population is Christian. 10% of the U.S. population is atheist / agnostic, 0.2% of the prison population is atheist / agnostic. You can call it overcompensation, but when atheists say they're less likely to justify violence with religion, I'm inclined to believe them.

As a side note, if you were an atheist, would you justify anything with religion?

some would argue that prisoners find religion and convert while in prison and were not Christian prior to committing a crime.

another argument is that if they are christian by default due to upbringing and parental religion then they werent really christian or even better if they confess to being christian and commit a crime that in itself is a non christian thing to do and by extension they are not christian due to their actions.

it basically is a nice cop out to keep the religion untainted by the actions of those that the larger or even smaller community want to distance themselves from.

People come up with some nifty stuff. I was taught from childhood that the forces of hell work harder against Mormons than against the rest of the population.... lol.

I wonder how many of the people who identify themselves as "Christian" in these studies are actually week to week church goers? I know that my mother for example would identify herself as a Protestant, and she hasn't gone to church regularly since I was child. There are a ton of causal Christians, but I get the impression that the majority of people who identify themselves as Muslim, likely take the their faith a little more seriously. That could account for some of the disparity in the poll numbers.

Originally posted by Quark_666
You can call it overcompensation, but when atheists say they're less likely to justify violence with religion, I'm inclined to believe them.

What I meant is that many atheists want to set a higher standard than what is found in organized religion.

Originally posted by srankmissingnin
I wonder how many of the people who identify themselves as "Christian" in these studies are actually week to week church goers? I know that my mother for example would identify herself as a Protestant, and she hasn't gone to church regularly since I was child. There are a ton of causal Christians, but I get the impression that the majority of people who identify themselves as Muslim, likely take the their faith a little more seriously. That could account for some of the disparity in the poll numbers.

Originally posted by Mindship
What I meant is that many atheists want to set a higher standard than what is found in organized religion.

There's something to this. I became, for all intents and purposes, more moral when I left religion. There was certainly a bit of psychological "they're not going to pin anything on me because of my lack of religion" slant to it...some of it was to make sure I didn't "prove" anyone right by doing something awful, and part was that I was a little scared of peoples' reactions. So it was a defense mechanism in a way, because I had enough ill will directed my way anyway.

Once that faded, the morality did not. I still find myself at a higher moral standard, and certainly a more inclusive one. Though, probably not coincidentally, many things that religions see as "sinful" I can't find a logical underpinning for them being bad, so there's also been a broadening of acceptability.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Ask the native Americans about the Christian belief in "manifest destiny" - or just Google it. And I dare you to try and pretend the KKK wasn't driven by religion.

Religion was (and still is) a source of power for the KKK and the KKK has used religion to establish itself, lend itself a sense of legitimacy, and spread its message but I don't think it would be right to say that the original KKK or even the current KKK is a religious movement.

It was born from social turmoil and resentment, it was a Protestant political group who's earliest targets were white, protestant Northern Carpetbaggers as well as black (again Protestant) freedmen in political positions.

Sure the KKK are no fans of Catholics or Muslims or Jews, but religious intolerance wasn't the fundamental cause of the Klan's formation.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Actually I don't think it was driven by religion, in the sense that religion was the main cause/catalyst for its creation.

Religion was (and still is) a source of power for the KKK and the KKK has used religion to establish itself, lend itself a sense of legitimacy, and spread its message but I don't think it would be right to say that the original KKK or even the current KKK is a religious movement.

It was born from social turmoil and resentment, it was a Protestant political group who's earliest targets were white, protestant Northern Carpetbaggers as well as black (again Protestant) freedmen in political positions.

Sure the KKK are no fans of Catholics or Muslims or Jews, but religious intolerance wasn't the fundamental cause of the Klan's formation.

Originally posted by inimalist
no, that is actually a really good point...

I suppose it has much less to do with escaping brutality and more to do with the integration into society, etc. Among a host of other reasons.

For instance, in North America, the constitutions have no clauses that protect "American" or "Canadian" culture, so there is very little conflict between people wanting to live as Muslims and Americans/Canadians. This has changed a bit since 9-11, but in America, and there are a number of stats that support this, Muslims tend to be even more integrated into society than most minority groups. This is why things like the hijab debate are really unheard of here.

The other part would be that having more money allows you to integrate anyways, so in the end, Muslim immigrants that end up in North America versus Europe are entering a society that is both more open to them and their culture, and they have more material means through which they can integrate.

Thinking about it though, I'm not sure why that would impact someone's proclivity toward targeting citizens, unless there is some reason to think that poverty or social integration impact that directly, however, the Christian results seem to suggest social integration is not part of it, as they are completely integrated into society (they are the mainstream) and they are more willing to accept the targeting of civilians... I can't speak to the poverty thing specifically, it would be interesting to see the christian numbers broken down by class. [maybe being part of the mainstream allows you to out-group all other people, blurring the distinction between enemy and civilian?]

It might just be a reaction to real world events, as there is a context to these questions that is not really talked about in the brief article I posted. If you ask a Muslim "Is it ok to target civilians?" it is likely they will either think of it in terms of Muslims targeting civilians with terrorism or civilians killed in Muslim nations by NATO, which it is easy to see why they would be against. Actually, now that I write that, I think it is almost certainly more a mixture of out-grouping by mainstream American society and a knee-jerk response from Muslims, rather than poverty or integration...

hmmmmm, good point indeed

that said i find it kind of surprising that you say the united states (can't speak for canada) is more accepting/open towards their culture than europe is. i understand they have tried things like banning minarets or burkas, which would be unheard of here. that said, were it not for the emphasis on 'religious freedom' that we have in this country, i think those issues very well could spark a debate here. for example there have been debates on laws which banned saggy pants in some cities here.

i think that europe might have these issues simply because they happen to have more muslim immigrants, to be honest. i think that were we to find any significant population of muslims in america that these cultural clashes would arise here too.

so maybe the muslims in europe would be more open to support violence (if that is indeed the case) because they feel more bolstered and emboldened by their numbers and hence are able to 'out-group' as you put it in a similar manner that mainstream americans are able to do.

i'm just speculating though. i've never actually even been to europe, so the situation could in fact be greatly exaggerated.

Originally posted by chomperx9
everything you listed there should not be judged on their religion.

Originally posted by Digi
There's something to this. I became, for all intents and purposes, more moral when I left religion. There was certainly a bit of psychological "they're not going to pin anything on me because of my lack of religion" slant to it...some of it was to make sure I didn't "prove" anyone right by doing something awful, and part was that I was a little scared of peoples' reactions. So it was a defense mechanism in a way, because I had enough ill will directed my way anyway.

Once that faded, the morality did not. I still find myself at a higher moral standard, and certainly a more inclusive one. Though, probably not coincidentally, many things that religions see as "sinful" I can't find a logical underpinning for them being bad, so there's also been a broadening of acceptability.

Originally posted by Digi
...most of any religion are peaceful. A religion where the majority are violent would not last long. It doesn't shirk the fact that Christians more easily justify violence in this country.

Originally posted by SamZED
In other words if some christian murders a bunch of people he's just a terrorist, but if some muslim does the same he's not just a terrorist, he's a MUSLIM terrorist. I can see now where those ratings come from...

Originally posted by chomperx9
a terrorist is a terrorist, no matter the belief. Muslims bring more attention to themselves with it because of their behavior with their religion and making threats towards our nation constantly.

sound familiar? it should it is Bush and his christian cronies and beliefs.

Originally posted by King Castle
the same way christians scream the end of days, the anti christ, fall of government, Holy war and most importantly: "you are either with us or against us, God bless america?"

sound familiar? it should it is Bush and his christian cronies and beliefs.