'Most Embrace a Role for Islam in Politics'
December 5, 2010 1:29 PM Subscribe
'A majority of Muslims around the world welcome a significant role for Islam in their countries' political life, according to a new poll from the Pew Research Center.' However, they 'have mixed feelings toward militant religious groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. According to the survey, majorities in Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan and Nigeria would favor changing the current laws to allow stoning as a punishment for adultery, hand amputation for theft and death for those who convert from Islam to another religion. About 85% of Pakistani Muslims said they would support a law segregating men and women in the workplace. Indonesia, Egypt, Nigeria and Jordan were among the most enthusiastic, with more than three-quarters of Muslims polled in those countries reporting positive views of Islam's influence in politics: either that Islam had a large role in politics, and that was a good thing, or that it played a small role, and that was bad.'
'Opinions of al Qaeda and its leader, Osama bin Laden, are consistently negative; only in Nigeria do Muslims offer views that are, on balance, positive toward al Qaeda and bin Laden.
Hezbollah receives its most positive ratings in Jordan, where 55% of Muslims have a favorable view; a slim majority (52%) of Lebanese Muslims also support the group, which operates politically and militarily in their country.'
'Opinions of al Qaeda and its leader, Osama bin Laden, are consistently negative; only in Nigeria do Muslims offer views that are, on balance, positive toward al Qaeda and bin Laden.
Hezbollah receives its most positive ratings in Jordan, where 55% of Muslims have a favorable view; a slim majority (52%) of Lebanese Muslims also support the group, which operates politically and militarily in their country.'
Poor people do not hold reasoned political opinions.
posted by norabarnacl3 at 1:40 PM on December 5, 2010
posted by norabarnacl3 at 1:40 PM on December 5, 2010
Substitute "Christians" and "Christianity" in the first sentence and... wow!
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:42 PM on December 5, 2010 [16 favorites]
posted by oneswellfoop at 1:42 PM on December 5, 2010 [16 favorites]
Poor people do not hold reasoned political opinions.
I wonder where the idea for poll taxes came from.
posted by VikingSword at 1:43 PM on December 5, 2010 [2 favorites]
I wonder where the idea for poll taxes came from.
posted by VikingSword at 1:43 PM on December 5, 2010 [2 favorites]
"'A majority of Muslims around the world welcome a significant role for Islam in their countries' political life, according to a new poll from the Pew Research Center.' However, they 'have mixed feelings toward militant religious groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. According to the survey, majorities in Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan and Nigeria would favor changing the current laws to allow stoning as a punishment for adultery, hand amputation for theft and death for those who convert from Islam to another religion. About 85% of Pakistani Muslims said they would support a law segregating men and women in the workplace. "
I'm confident that the same would be true for Christians were we to, mutatis mutandis, replace the key terms with Christian equivalents.
posted by oddman at 1:43 PM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
I'm confident that the same would be true for Christians were we to, mutatis mutandis, replace the key terms with Christian equivalents.
posted by oddman at 1:43 PM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
"So, uh, Dubya, I hate to bring this up, but... what exactly did you think was going to happen if we succeeded in bringing democracy to the Middle East? I mean, aren't most Arabs Muslims? And aren't most Muslims, you know, Muslim?"
posted by valkyryn at 1:43 PM on December 5, 2010 [9 favorites]
posted by valkyryn at 1:43 PM on December 5, 2010 [9 favorites]
It's of course pleasing to see the overwhelmingly negative opinion of Al-Qaida, how concerned everyone is about extremism, and positive views towards democracy
That's not really surprising. Prior to the Iranian Revolution, the overarching trends in Islam were generally pro-democracy, gradually becoming more acceptant of women's rights and a western(ish)-style legal system.
Of course, this is a gross generalization, but it is heartening (if not unsurprising) to see this trend begin to re-emerge even in light of the false narrative of Islamic Extremism being painted by Christian Extremists in the West.
posted by schmod at 1:44 PM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
That's not really surprising. Prior to the Iranian Revolution, the overarching trends in Islam were generally pro-democracy, gradually becoming more acceptant of women's rights and a western(ish)-style legal system.
Of course, this is a gross generalization, but it is heartening (if not unsurprising) to see this trend begin to re-emerge even in light of the false narrative of Islamic Extremism being painted by Christian Extremists in the West.
posted by schmod at 1:44 PM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
That's not really surprising.
I know. That's why I said it wasn't surprising.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 1:46 PM on December 5, 2010 [9 favorites]
I know. That's why I said it wasn't surprising.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 1:46 PM on December 5, 2010 [9 favorites]
And pounds to pennies that in all those countries specific local issues are of far greater concern to the vast majority, with Islam factoring only insofar as the overwhelming cultural heritage does anywhere (the question about the its influence on politics could certainly be replicated with other religions or ideologies elsewhere and there's quite a variance in the reported responses). By which I mean that while the survey produces some interesting data its very framing might suggest a more monolithic Muslim world than is the reality or, at a quick scan, its own results show.
posted by Abiezer at 1:54 PM on December 5, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by Abiezer at 1:54 PM on December 5, 2010 [2 favorites]
I wonder if a majority of Christians around the world would welcome a significant role for Christianity in their countries' political life? Those in the US seem to.
posted by muddgirl at 1:56 PM on December 5, 2010 [4 favorites]
posted by muddgirl at 1:56 PM on December 5, 2010 [4 favorites]
Should read before I type, I suppose.
posted by muddgirl at 1:57 PM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by muddgirl at 1:57 PM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
What oneswellfoop said. In fact, I'm sure I could rework some of the other sentences using "Well, I don't agree with what he did but I can see why he thought it was the right thing to do" commentary about abortion clinic bombers.
Do you think I would get a paper our of my research that shows there are relatively few Jews who feel the government ought to be doing more to promote idolatry, murder, theft, adultery and perjury?
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 2:01 PM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
Do you think I would get a paper our of my research that shows there are relatively few Jews who feel the government ought to be doing more to promote idolatry, murder, theft, adultery and perjury?
posted by Kid Charlemagne at 2:01 PM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
I wonder if those who support the death penalty for converting away from Islam support the death penalty for converting to Islam from another faith? By which I mean no, I don't wonder at all.
There's a reason religion always causes problems when you let it taint government, and this is independent of what religion it is.
posted by kafziel at 2:03 PM on December 5, 2010 [2 favorites]
There's a reason religion always causes problems when you let it taint government, and this is independent of what religion it is.
posted by kafziel at 2:03 PM on December 5, 2010 [2 favorites]
I don't think you'd find many people regardless of religion or political leaning who want their government to *promote* idolatry, murder, theft, adultery and perjury.
But I don't think you'd find majorities of Christians, Jews, atheists or Buddhists in the U.S. who would support stoning as a penalty for anything—let alone for switching religions. Switching religions itself is pretty darn American. Nor would anything like a majority support hand amputations for thieves or stoning for adultery. Nor would you find even a small minority for sex-segregating the workplace.
It astonishes me that anyone would think these things were good ideas.
posted by Maias at 2:14 PM on December 5, 2010 [14 favorites]
But I don't think you'd find majorities of Christians, Jews, atheists or Buddhists in the U.S. who would support stoning as a penalty for anything—let alone for switching religions. Switching religions itself is pretty darn American. Nor would anything like a majority support hand amputations for thieves or stoning for adultery. Nor would you find even a small minority for sex-segregating the workplace.
It astonishes me that anyone would think these things were good ideas.
posted by Maias at 2:14 PM on December 5, 2010 [14 favorites]
Substitute "Christians" and "Christianity" in the first sentence and... wow!
I'm confident that the same would be true for Christians were we to, mutatis mutandis, replace the key terms with Christian equivalents.
Oh, I agree... but I think this similarity should suggest something negative about both Christianity and Islam, rather than making one or the other look more "reasonable".
posted by vorfeed at 2:15 PM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
I'm confident that the same would be true for Christians were we to, mutatis mutandis, replace the key terms with Christian equivalents.
Oh, I agree... but I think this similarity should suggest something negative about both Christianity and Islam, rather than making one or the other look more "reasonable".
posted by vorfeed at 2:15 PM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
vorfeed: are you sure that a newscip about indigenous justice systems in Ecuador is the best way to make your point? It's not actually about Christianity.
posted by honest knave at 2:33 PM on December 5, 2010
posted by honest knave at 2:33 PM on December 5, 2010
I wonder what the poll results would be for Iran or Algeria. Once a generation or two has experienced some form of Islamic government they seem to grow less enchanted with the idea.
The difference between Islamic countries and the west is the Christian prophet did not establish a government. Muhammad did; for Muslims the ideal image of government involves religion.
posted by atchafalaya at 2:36 PM on December 5, 2010
The difference between Islamic countries and the west is the Christian prophet did not establish a government. Muhammad did; for Muslims the ideal image of government involves religion.
posted by atchafalaya at 2:36 PM on December 5, 2010
But I don't think you'd find majorities of Christians, Jews, atheists or Buddhists in the U.S.
Well, we're not talking about the U.S. are we? I think you might be surprised what mass polls of countries that are majority rural and agricultural based feel about social issues. You might poll Christians in Nigeria -- and use that as the yardstick if your desired intent was the absurd comparison of two abstract religious concepts.
posted by iamck at 2:37 PM on December 5, 2010 [3 favorites]
Well, we're not talking about the U.S. are we? I think you might be surprised what mass polls of countries that are majority rural and agricultural based feel about social issues. You might poll Christians in Nigeria -- and use that as the yardstick if your desired intent was the absurd comparison of two abstract religious concepts.
posted by iamck at 2:37 PM on December 5, 2010 [3 favorites]
I'm surprised this is getting any attention today since it's not news that the Koran proclaims that there is no distinction between the world of faith and that of ordinary life. The separation of church, as it were, and state is a truly alien concept.
posted by etaoin at 3:16 PM on December 5, 2010
posted by etaoin at 3:16 PM on December 5, 2010
For a quick marker of those holding odd, old, harsh, strict views: beware of all men wearing funny hats, unless cowboy hats or baseball caps. Women? they wear what those men in funny hats tell them to do.
posted by Postroad at 3:17 PM on December 5, 2010
posted by Postroad at 3:17 PM on December 5, 2010
But I don't think you'd find majorities of Christians, Jews, atheists or Buddhists in the U.S. who would support stoning as a penalty for anything—let alone for switching religions. Switching religions itself is pretty darn American. Nor would anything like a majority support hand amputations for thieves or stoning for adultery. Nor would you find even a small minority for sex-segregating the workplace.
Quoted for truth. Let's not let the fact that the right-wing have demonized anything remotely to do with Islam mean that we cannot decry what are quite obviously primitive views totally at odds with our values.
posted by ob at 3:27 PM on December 5, 2010 [9 favorites]
Quoted for truth. Let's not let the fact that the right-wing have demonized anything remotely to do with Islam mean that we cannot decry what are quite obviously primitive views totally at odds with our values.
posted by ob at 3:27 PM on December 5, 2010 [9 favorites]
vorfeed: are you sure that a newscip about indigenous justice systems in Ecuador is the best way to make your point? It's not actually about Christianity.
Feel free to substitute Christian support (including support from US Christians) for the homosexual death-penalty bill in Uganda, then. Or DoMA, or this sort of thing, or this, or this.
posted by vorfeed at 3:34 PM on December 5, 2010 [3 favorites]
Feel free to substitute Christian support (including support from US Christians) for the homosexual death-penalty bill in Uganda, then. Or DoMA, or this sort of thing, or this, or this.
posted by vorfeed at 3:34 PM on December 5, 2010 [3 favorites]
Although the web of cause-and-effect is not always easy to disentangle, it's clear that poverty and ignorance make fine bedfellows. The West appears to be doing a good job of pillaging and impoverishing huge swathes of Islamic countries in the Middle East and Africa (the massive affluence of a handful of Gulf-state dynasties notwithstanding). We can hardly claim to be surprised by the radicalisation of the population.
If the goal was as nominally stated by the neo-cons - i.e. that we want to open markets and create trading partnerships to the benefit of all - then western intervention in the Middle East has been an unmitigated disaster. It would have been cheaper and more effective to parachute teachers and nurses into an endless chain of western-funded hospitals and schools which, by implication, would promote a massively pro-western agenda to a growing population.
If, instead, the goal was to further enrich the entrenched oligarchy at the expense of literally everyone else. foreign or domestic - well, then Mission Accomplished! And it's only getting better. The war with EastAsia is just the gift that keeps on giving.
posted by Jakey at 3:53 PM on December 5, 2010
If the goal was as nominally stated by the neo-cons - i.e. that we want to open markets and create trading partnerships to the benefit of all - then western intervention in the Middle East has been an unmitigated disaster. It would have been cheaper and more effective to parachute teachers and nurses into an endless chain of western-funded hospitals and schools which, by implication, would promote a massively pro-western agenda to a growing population.
If, instead, the goal was to further enrich the entrenched oligarchy at the expense of literally everyone else. foreign or domestic - well, then Mission Accomplished! And it's only getting better. The war with EastAsia is just the gift that keeps on giving.
posted by Jakey at 3:53 PM on December 5, 2010
"Poor people do not hold reasoned political opinions."
Uh, I'm poor, fuck you very much. And it's not like the comparatively rich people of America are that much more politically sophisticated. We did just vote in an asshole who wants to repeal the civil rights act and to get government out of health care except where he profits.
posted by klangklangston at 4:08 PM on December 5, 2010 [4 favorites]
Uh, I'm poor, fuck you very much. And it's not like the comparatively rich people of America are that much more politically sophisticated. We did just vote in an asshole who wants to repeal the civil rights act and to get government out of health care except where he profits.
posted by klangklangston at 4:08 PM on December 5, 2010 [4 favorites]
Sorry to keep trotting this out everytime this sort of subject pops up, but it does do fair enough job. Ladies and gentleman, Josh Lyman.
posted by timsteil at 4:20 PM on December 5, 2010
posted by timsteil at 4:20 PM on December 5, 2010
norabarnacl3: "Poor people do not hold reasoned political opinions"
Reasoning people don't hold religion as a political position.
posted by Splunge at 4:27 PM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
Reasoning people don't hold religion as a political position.
posted by Splunge at 4:27 PM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
According to the survey, majorities in Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan and Nigeria would favor changing the current laws to allow stoning as a punishment for adultery, hand amputation for theft and death for those who convert from Islam to another religion. About 85% of Pakistani Muslims said they would support a law segregating men and women in the workplace. "
I'm confident that the same would be true for Christians were we to, mutatis mutandis, replace the key terms with Christian equivalents.
What would the Christian equivalents of hand amputation for theft and death for apostasy be?
posted by IndigoJones at 4:34 PM on December 5, 2010
I'm confident that the same would be true for Christians were we to, mutatis mutandis, replace the key terms with Christian equivalents.
What would the Christian equivalents of hand amputation for theft and death for apostasy be?
posted by IndigoJones at 4:34 PM on December 5, 2010
Everyone talks about Christianity's role in U.S. politics, but what about in the rest of the world? No one seems to criticize old school Christian Democracy in Europe, which has been a successful alternative to social democracy and European conservatism for decades ever since the end of World War II.
posted by Apocryphon at 4:50 PM on December 5, 2010
posted by Apocryphon at 4:50 PM on December 5, 2010
The majority of people in the US and most European countries are, or have been in the recent past, Christians, and yet people in the West have embraced a separation of Church and state for centuries now. The West had its religious wars and learned toleration from them. An atheist can express his or her viewpoint in any Western country without fear of reprisal. That is not true in the Muslim world.
posted by Tashtego at 4:57 PM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by Tashtego at 4:57 PM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
If you tried to make the Islam / Christianity analogy in this thread, what was your intent exactly? To say Christianity and Islam belong in the same trashcan? Snap out of it. The fact that you hate the Republicans, Jerry Falwell, Sarah Palin or whoever the fuck you hate shouldn't cloud your judgement to the point you can't see right from wrong anymore and claim moral equivalence on people that asks for mutilation as a reasonable form of punishment to the people who say gays shouldn't marry. Notwithstanding the fact that support for the former grows while support for the latter wanes. What this research shows is that a Fred Phelps level of vitriol and rage would be considered tame by large swaths of the Muslim population in these countries.
Also: 39% of Muslims in Indonesia view the Al Qaeda favorably. That doesn't look an overwhelmingly negative view to me. To use the same great analogy from Josh Lyman's speech that timstell's posted above, that's like 39% of Christians in the US having a favorable view of the Klan. It's not a good thing anyway you look at it. But of course - it's the US's fault, right?
posted by falameufilho at 4:58 PM on December 5, 2010 [10 favorites]
Also: 39% of Muslims in Indonesia view the Al Qaeda favorably. That doesn't look an overwhelmingly negative view to me. To use the same great analogy from Josh Lyman's speech that timstell's posted above, that's like 39% of Christians in the US having a favorable view of the Klan. It's not a good thing anyway you look at it. But of course - it's the US's fault, right?
posted by falameufilho at 4:58 PM on December 5, 2010 [10 favorites]
I'm an apatheist, but it seems odd to me that people who identify themselves as "religious" would NOT want their government to adhere to their chosen dogma.
I mean....is it the absolute truth or isn't it?
posted by Salvor Hardin at 5:00 PM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
I mean....is it the absolute truth or isn't it?
posted by Salvor Hardin at 5:00 PM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
What would the Christian equivalents of hand amputation for theft and death for apostasy be?
Probably "not allowing" women to exert freedom over their own bodies or gays to marry. Which, you know, is basically the same thing. Hear me roar.
posted by falameufilho at 5:01 PM on December 5, 2010
Probably "not allowing" women to exert freedom over their own bodies or gays to marry. Which, you know, is basically the same thing. Hear me roar.
posted by falameufilho at 5:01 PM on December 5, 2010
it seems odd to me that people who identify themselves as "religious" would NOT want their government to adhere to their chosen dogma.
This is the equivalent of that stupid schtick by religious people who say atheists can't tell right from wrong because all moral teachings come from religion.
posted by falameufilho at 5:06 PM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
This is the equivalent of that stupid schtick by religious people who say atheists can't tell right from wrong because all moral teachings come from religion.
posted by falameufilho at 5:06 PM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
is it the absolute truth or isn't it?
Actually, it's very possible (and common) for reasonable people who believe (differently) that they hold absolute truth to still work out a way to share values about justice without abandoning those beliefs. See Rawls on The Idea of Public Reason (Wikipedia, Cambridge Companion to Rawls).
posted by honest knave at 5:19 PM on December 5, 2010 [2 favorites]
Actually, it's very possible (and common) for reasonable people who believe (differently) that they hold absolute truth to still work out a way to share values about justice without abandoning those beliefs. See Rawls on The Idea of Public Reason (Wikipedia, Cambridge Companion to Rawls).
posted by honest knave at 5:19 PM on December 5, 2010 [2 favorites]
Also: can we stop talking about "ISLAM" as some singular grand ideology, religious or political or whatever?
posted by iamck at 5:28 PM on December 5, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by iamck at 5:28 PM on December 5, 2010 [2 favorites]
Reasoning people don't hold religion as a political position.
Atheist troll is trolling a theist.
posted by Apocryphon at 5:29 PM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
Atheist troll is trolling a theist.
posted by Apocryphon at 5:29 PM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
I see a disturbing lack of understanding of nuance in this discussion. I echo iamck in saying:
Also: can we stop talking about "ISLAM" as some singular grand ideology, religious or political or whatever?
Except this really extends to just about any cultural, religious, or ideological worldview. People are failing to see that religion is more than just dogma or doctrines, that a lot of factors come into play. Not all believers have the same extent of faith, or they don't all agree on the implications of following a faith, and so on. Theists are no more machines that run on religion than atheists are machines that run on logic.
posted by Apocryphon at 5:33 PM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
Also: can we stop talking about "ISLAM" as some singular grand ideology, religious or political or whatever?
Except this really extends to just about any cultural, religious, or ideological worldview. People are failing to see that religion is more than just dogma or doctrines, that a lot of factors come into play. Not all believers have the same extent of faith, or they don't all agree on the implications of following a faith, and so on. Theists are no more machines that run on religion than atheists are machines that run on logic.
posted by Apocryphon at 5:33 PM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
Salvor Hardin: I'm an apatheist, but it seems odd to me that people who identify themselves as "religious" would NOT want their government to adhere to their chosen dogma.
I mean....is it the absolute truth or isn't it?
I think a big part of this reason for the historic avoidance of this in the US and in Europe (during recent times) is due to the cultural memory of the massive corruption that occurred in the Catholic church during the dark ages. Combining church and state doesn't only ruin the state, it also ruins the church.
posted by Mitrovarr at 5:43 PM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
I mean....is it the absolute truth or isn't it?
I think a big part of this reason for the historic avoidance of this in the US and in Europe (during recent times) is due to the cultural memory of the massive corruption that occurred in the Catholic church during the dark ages. Combining church and state doesn't only ruin the state, it also ruins the church.
posted by Mitrovarr at 5:43 PM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
An atheist can express his or her viewpoint in any Western country without fear of reprisal.
This is not true. Not unless a €25,000 fine doesn't count as "reprisal".
If you tried to make the Islam / Christianity analogy in this thread, what was your intent exactly? To say Christianity and Islam belong in the same trashcan? Snap out of it. The fact that you hate the Republicans, Jerry Falwell, Sarah Palin or whoever the fuck you hate shouldn't cloud your judgement to the point you can't see right from wrong anymore and claim moral equivalence on people that asks for mutilation as a reasonable form of punishment to the people who say gays shouldn't marry.
Oh, good call. Why, this is almost like saying a murderer and an assaulter deserve to be in the same prison!
Fortunately, we don't need "moral equivalence" to point out that, while murdering someone is very bad, beating them up is also bad. Feel free to extend the metaphor on your own...
posted by vorfeed at 6:05 PM on December 5, 2010
This is not true. Not unless a €25,000 fine doesn't count as "reprisal".
If you tried to make the Islam / Christianity analogy in this thread, what was your intent exactly? To say Christianity and Islam belong in the same trashcan? Snap out of it. The fact that you hate the Republicans, Jerry Falwell, Sarah Palin or whoever the fuck you hate shouldn't cloud your judgement to the point you can't see right from wrong anymore and claim moral equivalence on people that asks for mutilation as a reasonable form of punishment to the people who say gays shouldn't marry.
Oh, good call. Why, this is almost like saying a murderer and an assaulter deserve to be in the same prison!
Fortunately, we don't need "moral equivalence" to point out that, while murdering someone is very bad, beating them up is also bad. Feel free to extend the metaphor on your own...
posted by vorfeed at 6:05 PM on December 5, 2010
I think a big part of this reason for the historic avoidance of this in the US and in Europe (during recent times) is due to the cultural memory of the massive corruption that occurred in the Catholic church during the dark ages.
Unlikely. A more likely source of the avoidance is the cultural memory of generations of religious warfare and oppression as the corrupt and the heretical scrambled to hold on to state power long enough to enforce their version of Christianity on the rest of the country or other countries. FWIW, this is Rawls' explanation as well. The corruption argument just doesn't carry the weight of that sort of bloodshed, nor does it explain the general support of some form of public reason in countries that played opposing roles in the Reformation (France v. England, Italian states v. Switzerland).
I say that because growing up, I heard the corruption version a lot from peers (and teachers) who were almost all some variety of Protestant. It has more to do with the narrative of how Protestantism saves Christianity and democracy from the Catholics than historical fact. I don't say that to rag on you, but rather to say that adopting this particular explanation carries cultural significance beyond its (dubious) merits.
posted by Marty Marx at 6:38 PM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
Unlikely. A more likely source of the avoidance is the cultural memory of generations of religious warfare and oppression as the corrupt and the heretical scrambled to hold on to state power long enough to enforce their version of Christianity on the rest of the country or other countries. FWIW, this is Rawls' explanation as well. The corruption argument just doesn't carry the weight of that sort of bloodshed, nor does it explain the general support of some form of public reason in countries that played opposing roles in the Reformation (France v. England, Italian states v. Switzerland).
I say that because growing up, I heard the corruption version a lot from peers (and teachers) who were almost all some variety of Protestant. It has more to do with the narrative of how Protestantism saves Christianity and democracy from the Catholics than historical fact. I don't say that to rag on you, but rather to say that adopting this particular explanation carries cultural significance beyond its (dubious) merits.
posted by Marty Marx at 6:38 PM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
Tangential, but people interested in this issue might be interested in the digging done by Jacob Shapiro at Princeton into the issue of causes of popular support for terrorist organizations here (pdf).
An analysis of data from a nationally representative survey of urban Pakistanis refutes four influential conventional wisdoms about why Pakistanis support Islamic militancy. First, there is no clear relationship between poverty and support for militancy. If anything, support for militant organizations is increasing in terms of both subjective economic well-being and community economic performance. Second, personal religiosity and support for sharia law are poor predictors of support for Islamist militant organizations. Third, support for political goals espoused by legal Islamist parties is a weak indicator of support for militant organizations. Fourth, those who support core democratic principles or have faith inposted by shothotbot at 7:11 PM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
Pakistan’s democratic process are not less supportive of militancy. Taken together, these results suggest that commonly prescribed solutions to Islamist militancy—economic development, democratization, and the like—may be irrelevant at best and might even be counterproductive.
If you tried to make the Islam / Christianity analogy in this thread, what was your intent exactly? To say Christianity and Islam belong in the same trashcan? Snap out of it. The fact that you hate the Republicans, Jerry Falwell, Sarah Palin or whoever the fuck you hate shouldn't cloud your judgement to the point you can't see right from wrong anymore and claim moral equivalence on people that asks for mutilation as a reasonable form of punishment to the people who say gays shouldn't marry.
I refer you to every state Republican party platform that calls for the criminalization of homosexuality and homosexual acts. To every Clint McChance, every Saxby Chambliss staffer, to the 84% Christian nation of Uganda. Saying gays shouldn't marry is what the Overton Window currently permits as mainstream, but don't pretend these people don't want to see homosexuals stoned to death.
posted by kafziel at 8:03 PM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
I refer you to every state Republican party platform that calls for the criminalization of homosexuality and homosexual acts. To every Clint McChance, every Saxby Chambliss staffer, to the 84% Christian nation of Uganda. Saying gays shouldn't marry is what the Overton Window currently permits as mainstream, but don't pretend these people don't want to see homosexuals stoned to death.
posted by kafziel at 8:03 PM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
I refer you to every state Republican party platform that calls for the criminalization of homosexuality and homosexual acts.
I refer you to these polls. As noxious as the moralists on the Christian right may be, apparently 43% of evangelicals favor gays in the military (for example).
posted by Wordwoman at 8:28 PM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
I refer you to these polls. As noxious as the moralists on the Christian right may be, apparently 43% of evangelicals favor gays in the military (for example).
posted by Wordwoman at 8:28 PM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
Kafziel, is there any point in this sort of hyperbole? Surely you don't really think that Republicans want homosexuals to be stoned to death.
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:29 PM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by Joe in Australia at 8:29 PM on December 5, 2010 [1 favorite]
And pounds to pennies that in all those countries specific local issues are of far greater concern to the vast majority, with Islam factoring only insofar as the overwhelming cultural heritage does anywhere (the question about the its influence on politics could certainly be replicated with other religions or ideologies elsewhere and there's quite a variance in the reported responses).
I got a few pennies.
What may be overlooked is that the countries referenced are dictatorships. At least some of those dictators use faith as a tool, as a weapon of mass distraction (from corruption and severe shortcomings) and as a means of control of people and resources.
That's not a criticism of the faith, but of the dictators.
Pretty handy for the dictators when criticizing them = criticizing the faith, which tends to not go over so well.
posted by ambient2 at 8:52 PM on December 5, 2010
I got a few pennies.
What may be overlooked is that the countries referenced are dictatorships. At least some of those dictators use faith as a tool, as a weapon of mass distraction (from corruption and severe shortcomings) and as a means of control of people and resources.
That's not a criticism of the faith, but of the dictators.
Pretty handy for the dictators when criticizing them = criticizing the faith, which tends to not go over so well.
posted by ambient2 at 8:52 PM on December 5, 2010
P.S. I lived in Saudi Arabia when Bush was championing democracy in the region. Wise Saudis said the last thing Bush wanted was democracy in Saudi Arabia, which would result in Taliban West.
posted by ambient2 at 8:55 PM on December 5, 2010
posted by ambient2 at 8:55 PM on December 5, 2010
these people don't want to see homosexuals stoned to death.
You are delusional. You are extending the ideas of a fringe to a large swath of people. Disliking homosexuals and wanting them rounded up and executed are two completely different things. Both of them are bad things but on completely different levels. People shouldn't dislike homosexuals. I try to avoid social contact with people who do. That doesn't mean they should be sent to jail.
Do you want to make the argument that people who dislike homosexuals and shape public policy against homosexual rights should be fought against, because they are enablers of the fringe who actually wants to commit violent acts against homosexuals? I am there with you - you see (going on a tangent here) that's kind of the same line of argument of ADL when they refuse to dissociate Anti-Zionism from Anti-Semitism: at the very least, one thing leads to another. So, you're in very good company, Kafziel!
Now, do you want to mix the two groups together and simply say Republicans want to stone homosexuals to death? Sorry, but in the words of Mother Theresa of Calcutta, that's FUCKING RETARDED.
posted by falameufilho at 8:57 PM on December 5, 2010
You are delusional. You are extending the ideas of a fringe to a large swath of people. Disliking homosexuals and wanting them rounded up and executed are two completely different things. Both of them are bad things but on completely different levels. People shouldn't dislike homosexuals. I try to avoid social contact with people who do. That doesn't mean they should be sent to jail.
Do you want to make the argument that people who dislike homosexuals and shape public policy against homosexual rights should be fought against, because they are enablers of the fringe who actually wants to commit violent acts against homosexuals? I am there with you - you see (going on a tangent here) that's kind of the same line of argument of ADL when they refuse to dissociate Anti-Zionism from Anti-Semitism: at the very least, one thing leads to another. So, you're in very good company, Kafziel!
Now, do you want to mix the two groups together and simply say Republicans want to stone homosexuals to death? Sorry, but in the words of Mother Theresa of Calcutta, that's FUCKING RETARDED.
posted by falameufilho at 8:57 PM on December 5, 2010
People in the middle east have access to a relatively free press. If not domestically, then through the internet. They know what's going on. They know their countries are corrupt. Unfortunately, there are few, if any, avenues towards freer government. So they go on about their lives, trying to become engineers or doctors, trying to empower themselves in whatever way they can.
Political cynicism is a fact of life in the country I have the most first-hand experience in, Egypt. I'll note this, though. A recent perusal of Wikipedia named Egypt the most non-secular country in the world. Egypt was the spearhead of the relatively secular Pan-Arabism movement, but nowadays, after 29 years of the same dicator-like president, I have watched a generation of cousins grow up and say, every election day, with a knowing shrug, "What can you do?" They go out and vote, fully aware that the votes that are counted are not the ones that they put into the ballot box.
Still, I can't help but think what the alternative would be. The Muslim Brotherhood has popular support in Egypt now, and if the secular dictatorship in place were to give way, I could easily see Egypt becoming an Iran-lite. It wouldn't be quite as religious as Iran exactly, there wouldn't be Grand-leaders and Supreme-councils, but it would be some version of a sovereign Muslim government. And as an ex-Muslim, I'd like Egypt to turn back to the more secular times of the 50s and 60s.
I'm sorry. If you look at the record, though, Cairo has been the center of Middle Eastern cinema, and back in the day, back in the 40s, 50s and 60s, Egyptian cinema reflected a society that was rather secular. Back in those times there was a somewhat latent concept that westernism was what the Middle East needed to get up to par with the rest of the world, but since the rise of terrorism and political Islamism, the pendulum has swung to the other side, especially since 9/11.
You may have noticed that 9/11 has polarized our country, the United States, but it has had a sadly similar effect on the Middle East as well. Just to speak personally, my extended family in Egypt was always religious, but shortly after 9/11, most of my female cousins and aunts have elected to don the full on burka, only showing their eyes to strangers (in the case of cousins, that is in effect, so that people I played hide-and-seek with as children can now barely talk to me and never show me more than the bridge of their noses).
I find recent developments to be a great shame.
posted by malapropist at 9:16 PM on December 5, 2010 [8 favorites]
Political cynicism is a fact of life in the country I have the most first-hand experience in, Egypt. I'll note this, though. A recent perusal of Wikipedia named Egypt the most non-secular country in the world. Egypt was the spearhead of the relatively secular Pan-Arabism movement, but nowadays, after 29 years of the same dicator-like president, I have watched a generation of cousins grow up and say, every election day, with a knowing shrug, "What can you do?" They go out and vote, fully aware that the votes that are counted are not the ones that they put into the ballot box.
Still, I can't help but think what the alternative would be. The Muslim Brotherhood has popular support in Egypt now, and if the secular dictatorship in place were to give way, I could easily see Egypt becoming an Iran-lite. It wouldn't be quite as religious as Iran exactly, there wouldn't be Grand-leaders and Supreme-councils, but it would be some version of a sovereign Muslim government. And as an ex-Muslim, I'd like Egypt to turn back to the more secular times of the 50s and 60s.
I'm sorry. If you look at the record, though, Cairo has been the center of Middle Eastern cinema, and back in the day, back in the 40s, 50s and 60s, Egyptian cinema reflected a society that was rather secular. Back in those times there was a somewhat latent concept that westernism was what the Middle East needed to get up to par with the rest of the world, but since the rise of terrorism and political Islamism, the pendulum has swung to the other side, especially since 9/11.
You may have noticed that 9/11 has polarized our country, the United States, but it has had a sadly similar effect on the Middle East as well. Just to speak personally, my extended family in Egypt was always religious, but shortly after 9/11, most of my female cousins and aunts have elected to don the full on burka, only showing their eyes to strangers (in the case of cousins, that is in effect, so that people I played hide-and-seek with as children can now barely talk to me and never show me more than the bridge of their noses).
I find recent developments to be a great shame.
posted by malapropist at 9:16 PM on December 5, 2010 [8 favorites]
But I don't think you'd find majorities of Christians, Jews, atheists or Buddhists in the U.S. who would support stoning as a penalty for anything—let alone for switching religions.
US elected officials seem to be very quick to demand assassination-without-trial for annoying journalists though. Death-by-drone, death-by-chair, death-by-injection, death-by-stoning, it's all the same, really. A clear sign a country is still partly living in the dark ages.
posted by Djinh at 12:32 AM on December 6, 2010
US elected officials seem to be very quick to demand assassination-without-trial for annoying journalists though. Death-by-drone, death-by-chair, death-by-injection, death-by-stoning, it's all the same, really. A clear sign a country is still partly living in the dark ages.
posted by Djinh at 12:32 AM on December 6, 2010
US elected officials seem to be very quick to demand assassination-without-trial for annoying journalists though. Death-by-drone, death-by-chair, death-by-injection, death-by-stoning, it's all the same, really. A clear sign a country is still partly living in the dark ages.
Is this a reference to Assange? If it is, then it's actually a Canadian ex-official who demanded this.
posted by the cydonian at 1:03 AM on December 6, 2010
Is this a reference to Assange? If it is, then it's actually a Canadian ex-official who demanded this.
posted by the cydonian at 1:03 AM on December 6, 2010
To add to what malapropist said: Egypt has had the same secular-ish, corrupt dictator for almost 30 years. In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood is the alternative--their candidates are rounded up and jailed before elections, and they are the ones fighting for democracy.
So, in Egypt, supporting an Islamic government is, for some people, really only about supporting the opposition government. I'm not suggesting there isn't real support there for Islam and an Islamic government, but a lot of people there would just really like their votes to actually count.
posted by bluedaisy at 1:29 AM on December 6, 2010
So, in Egypt, supporting an Islamic government is, for some people, really only about supporting the opposition government. I'm not suggesting there isn't real support there for Islam and an Islamic government, but a lot of people there would just really like their votes to actually count.
posted by bluedaisy at 1:29 AM on December 6, 2010
Here's a better, longer piece about the current situation in Egypt, in regards to elections last week:
First Round of Voting Ousts Islamists From Egypt’s Parliament
What did surprise some was the Brotherhood’s share of seats in the new Parliament: zero. The Brotherhood, an Islamist movement with 88 seats in the current body and a vast following among Egypt’s 83 million people, was reduced to political nonexistence, at least for the first round of voting. The handful of other opposition parties won only a sprinkling of seats....
Also worthy of note: Mubarak is grooming his son to be his successor. So much for democracy.
posted by bluedaisy at 1:33 AM on December 6, 2010
First Round of Voting Ousts Islamists From Egypt’s Parliament
What did surprise some was the Brotherhood’s share of seats in the new Parliament: zero. The Brotherhood, an Islamist movement with 88 seats in the current body and a vast following among Egypt’s 83 million people, was reduced to political nonexistence, at least for the first round of voting. The handful of other opposition parties won only a sprinkling of seats....
Also worthy of note: Mubarak is grooming his son to be his successor. So much for democracy.
posted by bluedaisy at 1:33 AM on December 6, 2010
What may be overlooked is that the countries referenced are dictatorships.
Indonesia and Nigeria? Lebanon? Bollocks.
posted by Abiezer at 2:03 AM on December 6, 2010
Indonesia and Nigeria? Lebanon? Bollocks.
posted by Abiezer at 2:03 AM on December 6, 2010
Is this a reference to Assange? If it is, then it's actually a Canadian ex-official who demanded this.
I stand corrected: It was Canadian officials calling for his assassination. In the US the calls are mainly to try him for treason. Which is hilarious as he's not a US citizen.
posted by Djinh at 2:41 AM on December 6, 2010
I stand corrected: It was Canadian officials calling for his assassination. In the US the calls are mainly to try him for treason. Which is hilarious as he's not a US citizen.
posted by Djinh at 2:41 AM on December 6, 2010
So does only religion turn MeFi into a Youtube comments page, or are there other topics...?
posted by Apocryphon at 4:03 AM on December 6, 2010
posted by Apocryphon at 4:03 AM on December 6, 2010
If these results are accurate, I find them incredibly disturbing.
I find these results kind of surprising, with reference to Pakistan. Certainly, they aren't the proportions I would have predicted. It makes me wonder whether the sampling is skewed, how the questions were worded, and how out of touch I am with the majority viewpoint in Pakistan.
Take gender segregation in the workplace, for example. The majority of offices are not segregated by gender, and I have never heard anyone be disapproving of that. I can think of people I know who probably do disapprove of it, but they are by far a minority. A miniscule minority. At the same time, Pakistanis live daily lives that are very segregated by gender, by social norm rather than law. So even in the aforementioned non-segregated offices, in the office cafeteria, you will most likely see women sitting together and men sitting together.
It really makes me wonder how many people taking the survey understood the questions, and how they would have answered if the questions had been worded differently. e.g. do you think it should be illegal for men and women to work in the same room in an office? vs. should offices provide separate break lounges for men and women? There isn't a simple term in Urdu for "gender segregation" that I can think of. My Urdu isn't stellar, but it is better than that of the "person on the street."
I am reminded of the referendum conducted by Gen Zia ul Haq in the 80's. "Do you believe that Pakistan should be ruled by Islamic Law?" If you answered yes, this was construed to mean that you supported Gen Zia's continued rule. I am not by any means suggesting that this survey was anything like that manipulative and/or twisted. It's just that in my mind that particular referendum has become the archetypal example of the importance of survey design and care in interpretation of survey results.
As I think about this, another feature of Pakistani society comes to mind which might be at play here. There is a huge difference between what Pakistanis profess in public and what Pakistanis believe in private. Who asked the questions becomes an important question in itself in this regard. From my scan of the full report, it is still unclear who the questions were put to, and by whom.
Argh. So this whole thing has left me with lots of questions. And worries. Because I worry quite frequently about how my country is viewed in "the West." And about whether or not my country is moving forward as a society. And about how my country is treated by "the West." And replace "my country" with "Islam and/or Muslims" and repeat the list of worries.
Knots of tension are making themselves felt all across my shoulders as I contemplate this post, the poll it links to, and the opinions that it will engender.
posted by bardophile at 4:17 AM on December 6, 2010 [6 favorites]
I find these results kind of surprising, with reference to Pakistan. Certainly, they aren't the proportions I would have predicted. It makes me wonder whether the sampling is skewed, how the questions were worded, and how out of touch I am with the majority viewpoint in Pakistan.
Take gender segregation in the workplace, for example. The majority of offices are not segregated by gender, and I have never heard anyone be disapproving of that. I can think of people I know who probably do disapprove of it, but they are by far a minority. A miniscule minority. At the same time, Pakistanis live daily lives that are very segregated by gender, by social norm rather than law. So even in the aforementioned non-segregated offices, in the office cafeteria, you will most likely see women sitting together and men sitting together.
It really makes me wonder how many people taking the survey understood the questions, and how they would have answered if the questions had been worded differently. e.g. do you think it should be illegal for men and women to work in the same room in an office? vs. should offices provide separate break lounges for men and women? There isn't a simple term in Urdu for "gender segregation" that I can think of. My Urdu isn't stellar, but it is better than that of the "person on the street."
I am reminded of the referendum conducted by Gen Zia ul Haq in the 80's. "Do you believe that Pakistan should be ruled by Islamic Law?" If you answered yes, this was construed to mean that you supported Gen Zia's continued rule. I am not by any means suggesting that this survey was anything like that manipulative and/or twisted. It's just that in my mind that particular referendum has become the archetypal example of the importance of survey design and care in interpretation of survey results.
As I think about this, another feature of Pakistani society comes to mind which might be at play here. There is a huge difference between what Pakistanis profess in public and what Pakistanis believe in private. Who asked the questions becomes an important question in itself in this regard. From my scan of the full report, it is still unclear who the questions were put to, and by whom.
Argh. So this whole thing has left me with lots of questions. And worries. Because I worry quite frequently about how my country is viewed in "the West." And about whether or not my country is moving forward as a society. And about how my country is treated by "the West." And replace "my country" with "Islam and/or Muslims" and repeat the list of worries.
Knots of tension are making themselves felt all across my shoulders as I contemplate this post, the poll it links to, and the opinions that it will engender.
posted by bardophile at 4:17 AM on December 6, 2010 [6 favorites]
Postroad: "unless cowboy hats or baseball caps."
Not so sure we should give those a pass.
posted by Rat Spatula at 6:32 AM on December 6, 2010
Not so sure we should give those a pass.
posted by Rat Spatula at 6:32 AM on December 6, 2010
Death-by-drone, death-by-chair, death-by-injection, death-by-stoning, it's all the same, really. A clear sign a country is still partly living in the dark ages.
It's not the same. Those things on that list are not like the other, and you putting them together in the same bucket only show your ignorance and bigotry.
Again: Don't let your opposition to the death penalty, your hatred of the state of Texas, your disagreement with the fucking Republicans cloud your judgement and call this the same thing as Iranians stoning adulterous women. At least consider the fact that we are having this discussion here in the open a fact that we're having this discussion here in public, that many in this country dedicate their lives to stop the death penalty with no concern for their personal safety. Try to campaign against stoning in Iran and tell me the results.
What's your objective? Saying that lethal injection and stoning and the chair are the same is an attempt to say the US and Iran are the same? And if so, do you understand that this is exactly what the Iranian regime wants, to be acknowledged as the same as everybody else? If you think I'm full of shit, hear it from the horse's mouth - that's Ahmadinejad's line whenever someone criticizes Iran - the US does the same, why can't we do it? If that's what you want to do, prop up the Iranian regime, while belittling the US, great job. Now, if you want to fight the injustices that happen on both places, start by acknowledging things are not the same.
P.S.: Death-by-drone is the only controversial item on your list, but you're argument turned to shit when you added the chair and injection to the list (better luck next time). Still, I would be very reluctant to even explore an analogy of drone attacks and stoning.
posted by falameufilho at 6:32 AM on December 6, 2010
It's not the same. Those things on that list are not like the other, and you putting them together in the same bucket only show your ignorance and bigotry.
Again: Don't let your opposition to the death penalty, your hatred of the state of Texas, your disagreement with the fucking Republicans cloud your judgement and call this the same thing as Iranians stoning adulterous women. At least consider the fact that we are having this discussion here in the open a fact that we're having this discussion here in public, that many in this country dedicate their lives to stop the death penalty with no concern for their personal safety. Try to campaign against stoning in Iran and tell me the results.
What's your objective? Saying that lethal injection and stoning and the chair are the same is an attempt to say the US and Iran are the same? And if so, do you understand that this is exactly what the Iranian regime wants, to be acknowledged as the same as everybody else? If you think I'm full of shit, hear it from the horse's mouth - that's Ahmadinejad's line whenever someone criticizes Iran - the US does the same, why can't we do it? If that's what you want to do, prop up the Iranian regime, while belittling the US, great job. Now, if you want to fight the injustices that happen on both places, start by acknowledging things are not the same.
P.S.: Death-by-drone is the only controversial item on your list, but you're argument turned to shit when you added the chair and injection to the list (better luck next time). Still, I would be very reluctant to even explore an analogy of drone attacks and stoning.
posted by falameufilho at 6:32 AM on December 6, 2010
So does only religion turn MeFi into a Youtube comments page, or are there other topics...?
You should see it when we talk about de-clawing circumcised fat people! Woooo boy, then the dust starts a-flyin'!
posted by FatherDagon at 8:41 AM on December 6, 2010 [3 favorites]
You should see it when we talk about de-clawing circumcised fat people! Woooo boy, then the dust starts a-flyin'!
posted by FatherDagon at 8:41 AM on December 6, 2010 [3 favorites]
/s/you're/your/ geez
posted by falameufilho at 8:43 AM on December 6, 2010
posted by falameufilho at 8:43 AM on December 6, 2010
So does only religion turn MeFi into a Youtube comments page, or are there other topics...?
De-clawing cats and circumcisions are fantastic triggers as well.
on preview: damnit fatherdragon
posted by thsmchnekllsfascists at 9:09 AM on December 6, 2010
De-clawing cats and circumcisions are fantastic triggers as well.
on preview: damnit fatherdragon
posted by thsmchnekllsfascists at 9:09 AM on December 6, 2010
Ah, well those two are notorious contentious topics on all sorts of other venues of the internet, too.
posted by Apocryphon at 1:28 PM on December 6, 2010
posted by Apocryphon at 1:28 PM on December 6, 2010
and religion isn't?
posted by thsmchnekllsfascists at 1:34 PM on December 6, 2010
posted by thsmchnekllsfascists at 1:34 PM on December 6, 2010
Okay, so if we take for a moment that these surveys are right (which is a large, leap, I know) the question is: what do we do about it?
I agree it's disturbing. But killing or converting all the Muslims and seizing their countries is clearly not an option (well, it isn't to people who aren't abhorrently evil, and it doesn't work anyway), and isolationism is delusional. So I don't see the use in yelling about how Islam is evil. I don't think it is, but either way it's here to deal with.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 3:11 PM on December 6, 2010
I agree it's disturbing. But killing or converting all the Muslims and seizing their countries is clearly not an option (well, it isn't to people who aren't abhorrently evil, and it doesn't work anyway), and isolationism is delusional. So I don't see the use in yelling about how Islam is evil. I don't think it is, but either way it's here to deal with.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 3:11 PM on December 6, 2010
What do we do about it? The best way to spread democracy, toleration, and other values is by example. Beyond that, we could avoid toppling elected governments around the world and replacing them with compliant dictators.
posted by Tashtego at 3:44 PM on December 6, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by Tashtego at 3:44 PM on December 6, 2010 [1 favorite]
Yeah, that was the point I was trying to make.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 5:17 PM on December 6, 2010
posted by Solon and Thanks at 5:17 PM on December 6, 2010
I've written to the Pew Center to ask for more information about their methodology. Will update if/when I hear back from them.
posted by bardophile at 9:33 PM on December 6, 2010
posted by bardophile at 9:33 PM on December 6, 2010
Thanks, bardophile. I think you've raised some important questions, and I'd be interested to know if you get any answers.
posted by harriet vane at 6:15 AM on December 7, 2010
posted by harriet vane at 6:15 AM on December 7, 2010
I mean really, if I lived in a country where stoning is a possible punishment (whether it's legal or not), I'm not sure I'd be keen to rock the boat for the sake of some dude taking a survey. How could I know if my responses would be truly anonymous? And if the dude was making some obvious cultural errors or using loaded terms without realising it, I'd be even less inclined to stick my neck out for the noob.
That said, if it turns out that it was actually a really well-designed survey done in culturally appropriate ways in each nation, then that's that. We can try to set a better example of the benefits of separation of church and state, but if people want a closer relationship between religion and government, they should be able to give it a go without the West bullying them into having a secular dictator just for the principle of the thing.
posted by harriet vane at 6:25 AM on December 7, 2010
That said, if it turns out that it was actually a really well-designed survey done in culturally appropriate ways in each nation, then that's that. We can try to set a better example of the benefits of separation of church and state, but if people want a closer relationship between religion and government, they should be able to give it a go without the West bullying them into having a secular dictator just for the principle of the thing.
posted by harriet vane at 6:25 AM on December 7, 2010
They've sent me a copy of the Urdu text of the questions used. Apparently there is no separate text for asking the questions in Punjabi (I don't know any of the other regional languages, so didn't ask about them). They don't say much about who the interviewers were, other than that it was a "Pakistani research firm." The questionnaire is 35 pages that are difficult to read because of printing/scanning quality, so it will take me a while to get through them.
My initial reactions are:
1) the vast majority of Pakistanis would be unable to understand the vocabulary being used,
2) some of the questions are actually worded in ways that are grammatically incorrect enough for me to be really puzzled about what they mean, until I translate them back to English in my head,
3) I'm really curious about what the protocol was for interviewers. To what extent did they explain terms and questions? Did they rephrase if necessary?
4) The email was friendly and offers to answer any other questions I might have.
More when I've read the whole thing.
posted by bardophile at 12:25 PM on December 8, 2010
My initial reactions are:
1) the vast majority of Pakistanis would be unable to understand the vocabulary being used,
2) some of the questions are actually worded in ways that are grammatically incorrect enough for me to be really puzzled about what they mean, until I translate them back to English in my head,
3) I'm really curious about what the protocol was for interviewers. To what extent did they explain terms and questions? Did they rephrase if necessary?
4) The email was friendly and offers to answer any other questions I might have.
More when I've read the whole thing.
posted by bardophile at 12:25 PM on December 8, 2010
Ah, it all becomes clear. I jumped to the "laws question." The question is framed as
"In Pakistan, would you favor or oppose the making of a law that in a place of work would keep men and women separate?"
The wording sounds even more awkward in Urdu. For those who understand Urdu/Hindi:
"Pakistan mein aap iss qanoon ke kaam karne ki jagha par mardon aur aurton ko alaihda kia jaaye ke banaye jaane ki himayat karainge/gi ya mukhaalfat karainge/gi?"
The problem is twofold: First, the language is really, horribly awkward. No one talks like this. Second, it gives respondents only the choice of supporting or opposing. And the word for opposition is much stronger than the word for support. And most Pakistanis are not going to oppose traditional religious doctrine when asked a black or white question.
This article describes the problem quite well, I think:
Although Pakistan has drifted right of center over the last three decades, the aforementioned findings seem to be contradicted by the reality on the ground. (emphasis mine) Cyril Almeida, an assistant editor and columnist at Dawn, noted that though Pakistani Muslims overwhelmingly welcome an Islamic influence over the country's politics, citizens continue to "consistently reject religious parties at the polls." The alliance of Islamist parties in Pakistan, the MMA, was trounced at the 2008 polls, managing to win only a miserable 2.2 percent of the vote. Moreover, a rise in public opinion against militancy in 2008 was in part due to a video showing the Taliban flogging a girl in Swat Valley, images that generated outrage in Pakistan. Almeida emphasized, "Pakistanis have certain fairly rigid conceptions of what is religiously permissible and what isn't. This isn't to say they will always do what they believe is required of them -- but when a survey puts certain questions, they're more likely to respond to what ought to be than what they do."
(emphasis mine)
The framing of survey questions can help explain contradictory quantitative data. In the case of the results generated in Pew's Religion, Law, and Society section of the survey, respondents were asked black-and-white questions, like, "Do you favor or oppose making stoning people who commit adultery the law in Pakistan?" According to Moeed Yusuf, a South Asia Advisor at the U.S. Institute of Peace, much of the so-called "Muslim World" find it difficult to go against anything seen as ordained by Islam. He added, "At an abstract level, Islam remains important to even the most secular of Muslims -- remember Islam is very candid about state and religion being an integrated whole (at least in the classic narrative) and so such questions would elicit such responses."
When faced with a choice between what they are supposed to say and what they actually practice, respondents tend to match abstract questions with equally abstract answers. However, Yusuf noted, "Do they want to be flogged or stoned for the same sin? No way. What about their own family members? Most probably not."
posted by bardophile at 12:50 PM on December 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
"In Pakistan, would you favor or oppose the making of a law that in a place of work would keep men and women separate?"
The wording sounds even more awkward in Urdu. For those who understand Urdu/Hindi:
"Pakistan mein aap iss qanoon ke kaam karne ki jagha par mardon aur aurton ko alaihda kia jaaye ke banaye jaane ki himayat karainge/gi ya mukhaalfat karainge/gi?"
The problem is twofold: First, the language is really, horribly awkward. No one talks like this. Second, it gives respondents only the choice of supporting or opposing. And the word for opposition is much stronger than the word for support. And most Pakistanis are not going to oppose traditional religious doctrine when asked a black or white question.
This article describes the problem quite well, I think:
Although Pakistan has drifted right of center over the last three decades, the aforementioned findings seem to be contradicted by the reality on the ground. (emphasis mine) Cyril Almeida, an assistant editor and columnist at Dawn, noted that though Pakistani Muslims overwhelmingly welcome an Islamic influence over the country's politics, citizens continue to "consistently reject religious parties at the polls." The alliance of Islamist parties in Pakistan, the MMA, was trounced at the 2008 polls, managing to win only a miserable 2.2 percent of the vote. Moreover, a rise in public opinion against militancy in 2008 was in part due to a video showing the Taliban flogging a girl in Swat Valley, images that generated outrage in Pakistan. Almeida emphasized, "Pakistanis have certain fairly rigid conceptions of what is religiously permissible and what isn't. This isn't to say they will always do what they believe is required of them -- but when a survey puts certain questions, they're more likely to respond to what ought to be than what they do."
(emphasis mine)
The framing of survey questions can help explain contradictory quantitative data. In the case of the results generated in Pew's Religion, Law, and Society section of the survey, respondents were asked black-and-white questions, like, "Do you favor or oppose making stoning people who commit adultery the law in Pakistan?" According to Moeed Yusuf, a South Asia Advisor at the U.S. Institute of Peace, much of the so-called "Muslim World" find it difficult to go against anything seen as ordained by Islam. He added, "At an abstract level, Islam remains important to even the most secular of Muslims -- remember Islam is very candid about state and religion being an integrated whole (at least in the classic narrative) and so such questions would elicit such responses."
When faced with a choice between what they are supposed to say and what they actually practice, respondents tend to match abstract questions with equally abstract answers. However, Yusuf noted, "Do they want to be flogged or stoned for the same sin? No way. What about their own family members? Most probably not."
posted by bardophile at 12:50 PM on December 8, 2010 [1 favorite]
« Older A week of blind dates | Offer Up Your Steps So I Can Climb Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 1:38 PM on December 5, 2010 [3 favorites]