Religion Does Not Color Views About Violence

[abso]

Religion Does Not Color Views About Violence
OIC countries slightly less likely to see military attacks on civilians as sometimes justified
(OIC = Organisation of the Islamic Cooperation)


.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ..................................................


A Gallup analysis of more than 130 countries nearly a decade after the 9/11 terrorist attacks suggests that one's religious identity and level of devotion have little to do with one's views about attacking civilians. Almost all residents surveyed in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa who reject attacks on civilians say religion is an important part of their daily lives -- much like those who say attacks are sometimes justified.

.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ..................................................


Evidence refutes the argument that Islam encourages violence more than other religions. Residents of the Organisation of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) member states are slightly less likely than residents of non-member states to view military attacks on civilians as sometimes justified, and about as likely as those of non-member states to say the same about individual attacks.

.................................................. .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ..................................................


Read Full Article Here:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/149369/Re...-Violence.aspx

[ConHog]

your violent scumbag cult that calls itself a religion is a violent scumbag cult, no matter how you try to deny it.

[Noir]

A phrase that i would view with caution is "attacking civilians" and what defines a civilian.

I've been in plenty of discussions with Muslims who are happy to say they do not think Civis or non-combatants like women should be victims of attacks. But when then pressed on attacks occurring over the Israel/Palestine conflict, they say (with no shame or irony) that any Israelis killed were by definition not Civis, and automatically combatants.

Such loose and pliable definitions must be taken into account, imo.

[abso]

A phrase that i would view with caution is "attacking civilians" and what defines a civilian.

I've been in plenty of discussions with Muslims who are happy to say they do not think Civis or non-combatants like women should be victims of attacks. But when then pressed on attacks occurring over the Israel/Palestine conflict, they say (with no shame or irony) that any Israelis killed were by definition not Civis, and automatically combatants.

Such loose and pliable definitions must be taken into account, imo.

a civilian is the non combatants, and of course not every israelian is a combatant, so attacking israelian civilians is not acceptable of course, a combatant is only the person who carries a weapon and trying to kill me or in a war with me, otherwise, none is qualified to be attacked, be it a combatant or not.

[abso]

your violent scumbag cult that calls itself a religion is a violent scumbag cult, no matter how you try to deny it.

okay, if you say so , i am happy that my posts gives you the chance to express all that anger and hate that has accumulated inside you, it's very healthy to do that every now and then.

[Noir]

a civilian is the non combatants, and of course not every israelian is a combatant, so attacking israelian civilians is not acceptable of course, a combatant is only the person who carries a weapon and trying to kill me or in a war with me, otherwise, none is qualified to be attacked, be it a combatant or not.

That may be what you think, but i'll happily guide you to Muslim forums where dozens where happy to disagree. And yet to a man they all said killings non-coms was wrong, just there definition of non-coms doesn't include Israelis... how useful exactly is the data in the OP when put in this context?

[ConHog]

okay, if you say so , i am happy that my posts gives you the chance to express all that anger and hate that has accumulated inside you, it's very healthy to do that every now and then.

I don't hate, not any more than I hate any nasty bug that must be killed. It's not out of hate, it just has to be done.

[abso]

That may be what you think, but i'll happily guide you to Muslim forums where dozens where happy to disagree. And yet to a man they all said killings non-coms was wrong, just there definition of non-coms doesn't include Israelis... how useful exactly is the data in the OP when put in this context?

well, i would love to talk to those people, maybe i can convince them that they are very wrong, i hate it when i see someone who is so blinded by hatred that he can't differentiate between right and wrong anymore.

[J.T]

There was a study some years back that showed Jewish and Christian children disapprove of Samson and other biblical figures' acts until you tell them it was Samson and God said it was okay.

Abrahamism is an amoral belief structure.


Ask a Christian or a Jew whether killing Jews to form a pure Aryan state is wrong and they'll wail about it for hours. Ask whether killing Palestinians, Ammonites, or Hittites to create a pure Jewish state is wrong...

[Noir]

well, i would love to talk to those people, maybe i can convince them that they are very wrong, i hate it when i see someone who is so blinded by hatred that he can't differentiate between right and wrong anymore.

Be my guest, i haven't been on any in months but iirc this one was pretty bad, http://forums.islamicawakening.com/

have fun.