Fear of death is highest among Muslims

"Many people assume that religious people are less anxious about death than the non-religious. After all, the most popular religions (Islam and Christianity) explicitly hold out the promise of eternal rewards for the faithful.

However, it's not quite that simple. After all, traditional versions of these gods are also pretty vengeful, and if you believe in a vengeful god, then you have to face the distinct possibility of some pretty nasty experiences after death. After all, even holy people usually have some guilty secrets.

[...]

The results for Malaysia were striking. There was a clear linear relationship between religiosity and fear of death. There was a similar relationship in Turkey, although less strong (they interviewed far fewer people in Turkey, however).

Even more striking were the results in the USA. Here, there was a curvilinear relationship - death anxiety was highest in those with average religious feelings.

The reason for these differences is probably down to differences in religious beliefs between Muslims and Christians. Muslims had the highest fear of death - the lowest fear of death was seen in the non-religious in America and Christians in Malaysia."

Epiphenom, Tom Rees, March 24, 2012

Muslims in Wales pass on their faith at higher rates than other religions

"The Cardiff University study, published online today in the journal Sociology, says that the proportion of adult Muslims actively practising the faith they were brought up in as children was 77%. That compares with 29% of Christians and 65% of other religions.

The study also found that 98% of Muslim children surveyed said they had the religion their parents were brought up in, compared with 62% of Christians and 89% of other religions.

The team analysed data from the Home Office’s 2003 Citizenship Survey data, using 13,988 replies from adults and 1,278 from young people aged 11 to 15.

[...]

Home Office statistics show that 74% of people in Wales are Christians but that only 7% of those attend church."


Walesonline.co.uk, Feb 13 2012 (Found via Islam in Europe)

Talk about "good and bad news"! The downside of such a study is that many people who identify as Christians, but don't give a toss about religion in their daily life, will suddenly feel the urge to compete with the muslims. Instead of embracing our secular future, they may turn around and cling to the past only because the Muslims do it.
On the other hand, 27% apostates within Islam is not a bad number considering how Islam is portrayed.

Canadian Muslims condemn UN “defamation of religion” decision

"The Muslim Canadian Congress has expressed shock and disappointment at the move by Islamic countries to bulldoze the United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHRC) into approving a resolution curtailing freedom of speech under the guise of protecting religion.

The resolution approved at the UNHRC and initiated by the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) is disingenuously titled "Combating Defamation of Religion." However, the fact is that the OIC resolution is nothing more than a cover to silence opponents of Islamist oppression inside Muslim countries, as well as in the West."

Muslim Canadian Congress, April 7, 2008

This is good news!

Have a look at their charter. They should get more coverage.

American Atheists and Agnostics divorce rate below average

"In addition to finding that four out of every five adults (78%) have been married at least once, the Barna study revealed that an even higher proportion of born again Christians (84%) tie the knot. That eclipses the proportion among people aligned with non-Christian faiths (74%) and among atheists and agnostics (65%).



Barna Group, March 31, 2008

Not such a big surprise, but I post it so you can all see that Atheists and Agnostics fare pretty well in their marriages. One could argue that since these infidels are less inclined to marry, they ought to have a higher success rate anyway. On the other hand one could argue that religious people seem to marry for less than good reasons.
I see Asians have a low divorce rate, no thanks to Muslims who (depending on their denomination) can have four wives and marry and divorce for a night. I mean, I wonder what the divorce rate in Iran is where one-night-stands, I mean marriages, are accepted.

"Malaysian man gets divorced twice in one day
It is not unusual for the many wives of a Muslim man to put up with each other for the good of the household, but two Malaysian women got along so well they decided to leave their husband at the same time."

Guardian, April 2 2008

That also reminds me:

"The extravagant side of Mohammed bin Laden's nature made itself evident when it came to women. Islam permits a man four wives at a time, and divorce is a simple matter, at least for a man, who only needs to declare, "I divorce you." Before his death, Mohammed bin Laden officially had fathered fifty-four children from twenty-two wives. The total number of wives he procured is impossible to determine, since he would often "marry" in the afternoon and divorce that night. An assistant followed behind to take care of any children he might have left in his wake. He also had a number of concubines, who stayed in the bin Laden compound if they bore him children. "My father used to say that he had fathered twenty-five sons for the jihad," his seventeenth son, Osama, later remembered."

Lawrence Wright - The Looming Tower (p71)

So there you see, Osama bin Laden shows what will happen when parents divorce!
That doesn't bode well for USA, which is the country with the highest divorce rate (despite being such a God-fearing country).

Lastly, a bit cheesy video with different, and lower divorce rates:

A review of the Organisation of Islamic Countries report on Islamophobia

"Islamophobia exists but the OIC report is the wrong way of going about it. A phobia is a strong irrational or powerful fear and dislikes of something, in this case, the religion of Islam.

[...]

Looking at the document, I would conclude that this was done by some under-graduates from a 3rd grade university hidden in a country-side somewhere, who have no idea about modern life and have suddenly stumbled upon the internet with their first lesson being Google search. As a result, this document starts off with the best of intentions and ends up rather fanning Islamophobia instead of helping to reduce it. It suffers from the following major defects:

* Total misunderstanding of the basic principle of Freedom of Speech. Freedom of speech includes the freedom to irritate and upset others. Freedom of speech does not include the right to discriminate against others though. For example, I can take the mickey out of suicide bombers wanting virgins and ending up with raisins. Or you can call me an infidel and say your religion is better than mine. These are completely acceptable, I have no issues. But you cannot tell others to kill me nor can I tell others to kill you. That is incitement to violence. The author seems to have deep intellectual issues in understanding this basic matter.
* Confusing racism with Islamophobia. Race belongs to a genetic category generally exhibited on the basis of a physical appearance. Islamophobia is a fear of Islam. Two totally different things. While in certain cases (such as black Muslims), they might blow over into being the same, but to confuse both of them as one shows muddled thinking. Muslims are not a race, and they do include a variety of different races and ethnic groups.
* Methodological and terminological confusion, which emerges from seriously flawed selection of incidents and coverage of incidents. Almost 50% of the incidents noted in the Appendix are not Islamophobic in nature, but belong to the category of freedom of speech or simple crime category. Islamophobia exists already without trying to add to it.
* A totally wrong emphasis on legal protections. They try to go deep into legal aspects of various conventions and institutions. But you see, those are already established, anti-discrimination laws exist, anti-violence laws exist anti-incitement laws exist and they are sufficient. For example, they are talking about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and completely forget that they themselves have repudiated it and have come up with a Universal Islamic Declaration of Human Rights. Here’s an idea! How about the OIC signing up to and transcribing to domestic law, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as most of the rest of the world has done?
* Be very careful about complaining about being a victim, because it only stands up when you yourself have not victimised someone else. Now if you look at the OIC minorities, one can come up with many examples of victimisation that they themselves have done. And we are talking about Muslims victimising Muslims here, forget about non-Muslims. Ranging from Shia, Sunni, Ahmadi, Baha’i, Ismaili, Darfurians and then all the way to the other side like Jews, Christians, Hindus Buddhists, etc. have been victimised in OIC countries. Now, consider the reaction if such a report on anti-Baha'i or anti-Shia or anti-Semitic discrimination is presented at the OIC? How about considering the fact that many if not most current anti-Semitic attacks in Europe are carried out by European Muslims?
* A totally imbalanced view of history. This entire report was so imbalanced in terms of its historical coverage that one does not even know where to start. What about the entry of Islam into the Caucasian world? Or the Chinese area? How about how it managed the entry and existence in South Asia and Africa? Islam has perhaps victimised more in many countries and regions than had been victimised against. Perhaps this is why their geographical scope of the report is so muddled (to avoid any facts which destroy their argument?)
* Significant challenges in the identification of the causes of Islamophobia. First of all, there is not one form of Islam; it is not a single view, sect or a monolith. More importantly it is not the role of the state to define it. So if you are an Ahmadi or a Shia or a Sunni or what have you, we simply do not care! If you have religious differences, then by all means, discuss them, but do not kill for those differences. For example, the list of seven points raised by the Runnymede Trust defining Islamophobia can, unfortunately be equally applied to anti-Semitism, Anti-Hinduism, Anti-Shia… in OIC countries, where they will be totally applicable. Consequently, ALL root causes of Islamophobia as identified in section 1.4.1 are completely wrong and misallocated.
* A clear misunderstanding of the role of the media and the level of control people can actually exert over them. Most - if not all - of the OIC have no or very little press freedom. On top of that, the Arab League, a subset of the OIC, has decided to take fuller control over their TV Media since February 2008. That is not how the media works in other countries. Do check out independent organisations such as Reporters without Borders.
* Israel – Palestine conflict. This is something that I can never understand. Curiously, more than 3/4th of all dead Palestinians have been killed by their fellow Arabs compared to the numbers killed by Israelis, but besides that breathtaking hypocrisy, I still cannot understand why they would include it in here. Or exclude say something like Bangladesh and Sudan? Pretty bizarre and intellectually vacuous."

Bhaskar Dasgupta, The Cheers, 3. April 2008

The report(PDF).

The things that offend armchair critics

"Fellow bloggers,

The writer at the Armchair Critic blog says that I should be shot for compiling the list of things that offend Muslims, and goes on to compare me to a terrorist.

Here's the Link.

Here's a short sample,

This guy is a real muppet. I couldn't care to dig up his background or where he came from for that matter. Anyone who stirs shit like that deserved to be shot really. This is simply a case of asking for it. Don't even mention terrorists, this chap could be in real trouble even if he bumped into his Muslim neighbour, if he has any.

Please spread the word about this guy.

Regards,
Kevin, The Amboy Times"

I see that the Armchair Critic has rewritten that post now, and there appears to have been quite a discussion which I haven't followed. But the right honourable Armchair Critic need to realize that merely compiling a list is not the same as contributing to its contents. I'm not one to ask for people to be shot, but if the Armchair Critic wants to point his gun, I mean finger, somewhere, how about pointing it in the right direction? Say, I contributed to that list with the story about this employee at Marks & Spencer who refused to sell the book First Bible Stories to an old grandmother. The real shit stirrer here is not me, Kevin or the Christian grandmother - it's the holier than thou employee. Episodes like this that have made me rethink freedom of religion because I realize that shit stirrers like this will use their religion for anything, so it needs clear limits.

It has to be said though, that there should perhaps have been made a list of "The things that do not offend Muslims", because while there's always a very large majority of Muslims who say nothing, thereby not making a difference(that's the real problem), there will often be a few individuals that champion common sense when faced with silly demands from fundamentalists.
Maybe they should get their own list?

Australians to take the emphasis off religion in a new attempt to integrate Muslims

"The new Australian Government, led by Kevin Rudd, has decided that it will try to engage with a wider Muslim community in the country rather than allowing the dialogue to be always mediated through religious leaders.
This is a departure from the approach of the previous Howard government, which had created a Muslim Advisory Board consisting of the usual imams and clerics who were more interested in promoting religion than bringing Muslims into the mainstream.
Now a new attempt will be made to recast the image of Muslims in Australia as overly-religious. The Government wants to recruit sporting figures, academics, business people and others who represent a broader face of the communities.

[...]

Mr Ferguson said a broader body would be considered. "We would always seek to have the broadest representation in any national committees established," he said. "There's a belief that, per se, Muslims are always more religious than other groups. But I know a lot of Muslim youth in my electorate that are totally irreligious, or it's marginal to their existence and they don't spend a lot of time thinking about the Koran.""

National Secular Society, 14 March 2008

This should be noted. In Norway a year ago, or something, the Police announced that they wanted more Muslims to join the Police, and their solution was to go recruiting in the mosques. Only.
But as you can see from the chart below, that is hardly a representative part of the immigrant population. (Church/Mosque attendance to the left)

Fatalistic Beliefs And Unethical Behavior

"It is well established that changing people's sense of responsibility can change their behavior. But what would happen if people came to believe that their behavior was the inevitable product of a causal chain beyond their control - a predetermined fate beyond the reach of free will?

[...]

Prior to the math test, Vohs and Schooler used a well-established method to prime the subjects' beliefs regarding free will: some of the students were taught that science disproves the notion of free will and that the illusion of free will was a mere artifact of the brain's biochemistry whereas others got no such indoctrination.
The results were clear: those with weaker convictions about their power to control their own destiny were more apt to cheat when given the opportunity as compared to those whose beliefs about controlling their own lives were left untouched.

[...]

As reported in the January issue of Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science, this study shows that those with a stronger belief in their own free will were less apt to steal money than were those with a weakened belief.
Although the results of this study point to a significant value in believing that free will exists, it clearly raises some significant societal questions about personal beliefs and personal behavior."

Medicalnewstoday.com, 30 Jan 2008

These news will make people change their opinions I am sure, insha'Allah.

Survey finds young and old Moroccans differ on religion

"In the survey, 28.9% of respondents said religion should guide personal life, while 44.8% remain undecided. On the relationship between religion and politics, the results are broadly similar: 24.9% considered that religion becomes dangerous when mixed with politics and 26.1% felt the opposite.
Despite an overall decline in the role of religion in daily life, there is a significant proportion of Moroccans who support political Islam and Jihadist movements. In fact, the survey shows that 17.6% of the population answered "yes" when asked: "Are you in agreement with Jihadist movements?"
The survey found that the younger the respondents, the more they say they agree with Jihadist movements. "The survey shows that 21.8% of people aged 18 to 24 agree with Jihadist movements, compared with 9.7% among the 60-plus age group," said Mohamed Sghir Janjar, director of Prologue magazine."

Magharebia, 14/12/07

I guess this is both good and bad news. As for the young age of extremists, it's to be expected as young people always tend to be more radical either way and will most likely diminsh over time. The good thing is of course that only 28.9% said that religion should guide life.

The abuse of Muslim women shames us all

"Just look at some current stories. Great Western Trains reports a disproportionately high number of suicides by Asian women. Hannana Siddiqui from a women's support group, Southall Black Sisters, blames 'abusive practices within Asian families'.
Next, we read that women are receiving 'virginity repair' operations on the NHS. One doctor, who pioneered hymen reconstruction operations in the Middle East, says demand in Britain is now insatiable because 'in some cultures, they like to see that the woman will bleed on the wedding night'.

[...]

There should be no dilemma; it's not racist to defend Asian women who need help, particularly if one acknowledges the vast majority of Muslim men are, no doubt, respectful of women. The racists are those who say that where genital mutilation, hymen-repair surgery, bullying, suicide and even stoning do occur, they are none of our business - because Asian women are 'different'. They aren't; they are fellow humans, fellow Brits."

Jasper Gerard, The Observer, November 18, 2007

"As a British Muslim I find 'virginity repairs' on the NHS dangerous, demeaning ... and utterly indefensible"
Saira Khan

Artists too frightened to tackle radical Islam

"Britain’s contemporary artists are fêted around the world for their willingness to shock but fear is preventing them from tackling Islamic fundamentalism. [...]

“I’ve censored myself,” [Grayson] Perry said at a discussion on art and politics organised by the Art Fund. “The reason I haven’t gone all out attacking Islamism in my art is because I feel real fear that someone will slit my throat.”

[...]

Across Europe there is growing evidence that freedom of expression has been curtailed by fear of religious fundamentalism. Robert Redeker, a French philosophy teacher, is in hiding after calling the Koran a “book of extraordinary violence” in Le Figaro in 2006; Spanish villages near Valencia have abandoned a centuries-old tradition of burning effigies of Muhammad to mark the reconquest of Spain, against the Moors; and an opera house in Berlin banned a production of Mozart’s Idomeneo because it depicted the beheading of Muhammad (as well as Jesus and other spiritual leaders)."

The Times, November 19, 2007

Revisiting the Danish Cartoon Crisis (interview with editor of Jyllandsposten)

"I think many people betrayed their own ideals. The history of the left, for instance, is a history of confronting authority—be it religious or political authority—and always challenging religious symbols and figures. In this case, they failed miserably. I think the left is in a deep crisis in Europe because of their lack of willingness to confront the racist ideology of Islamism. They somehow view the Koran as a new version of Das Kapital and are willing to ignore everything else, as long of they continue to see the Muslims of Europe as a new proletariat.

[...]

But what really bothers me today—and this hasn't been reported very widely—is that right after the cartoon crisis, the Organization of the Islamic Conference at the United Nations sponsored a resolution condemning the "ridiculing of religion." It didn't pass, but in March of this year the United Nations Human Rights Consul, which is the highest international body in the world for the protection of human rights, passed a resolution condoning state punishment of people criticizing religion. I think this is a big scandal. This was a direct result of the "cartoon crisis." Fortunately the European Union voted against it. But countries like Russia, Mexico and China supported the resolution. And in this resolution, they call on governments to pass laws or write provisions into their constitutions forbidding criticism of religion. This would give a free hand to authoritarian regimes around the world to clamp down on dissidents."

Flemming Rose, Reason.com, October 1, 2007

Regarding the last part, see these posts:

NGOs gagged again at UN Human Rights Council
A Catastrophe for Human Rights
Islamists Turn UN Human Rights Body into a Laughing Stock

People of the book?

"The question is, do Christians today really deserve this respectful designation? A University of Michigan study found that almost half the population attends Church regularly and a Baylor University study revealed that at least 85% believe in God. Historically, religion has played a key role in the American experience and the Bible has been its foundational document.

However, according to recent polls, Americans' knowledge of the Bible is woefully lacking. Although Gallup found that 60% of Americans read the Bible occasionally, most cannot name even one author of the four Gospels. Harpers magazine found that 12% of Americans thought Joan of Ark was the wife of Noah.

"God helps those who help themselves." It was Benjamin Franklin who coined the phrase but three-quarters of Americans believe it comes from the Bible, according to Boston University Professor of religion, Stephen Pothero. His book on religious literacy promotes a fresh effort at biblical education. Even Jay Leno, in his admittedly non-scientific man-on-the-street interviews, found almost no one who had heard of Cain and Abel or Sodom and Gomorrah. Several people thought Eve had been created from an apple or that there were twelve commandments. George Gallup once summed up, that America is simultaneously a religious nation and a nation of religious illiterates."

pressrelease365.com, 07/09/07

If you think you deserve the title, then check out this quiz.