ABU DHABI -- A Gallup analysis of more than 130 countries nearly a decade after the 9/11 terrorist attacks suggests that one's religious identity and level of devotion have little to do with one's views about attacking civilians. Almost all residents surveyed in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), Asia, and sub-Saharan Africa who reject attacks on civilians say religion is an important part of their daily lives -- much like those who say attacks are sometimes justified.
These key findings are among the many featured in a new brief released Friday by the Abu Dhabi Gallup Center, Views of Violence, based on Gallup surveys conducted between 2008 and 2010. Views of Violence examines public acceptance and rejection of attacks on civilians worldwide and what influences these attitudes.
Most Worldwide Agree Military Attacks Never Justified
Many of the world's residents agree that military attacks that target civilians are never justified, with a clear majority in Asia and the MENA region finding military attacks against civilians unacceptable. This is not surprising considering the acute conflicts raging in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and other parts of the Middle East. Residents of the U.S. and Canada are the most likely population in the world to believe military attacks targeting civilians are sometimes justified, with nearly half (47 percent) sharing this sentiment.
Europeans here break with their counterparts in the U.S. and Canada. The continent that fought two world wars and at one time used military conquest to colonize much of the Middle East, Africa, and Asia, now finds its residents more similarly minded with those in its former colonies than with its modern ally about whether military attacks on civilians are sometimes justified.
Individual Attacks on Civilians Unacceptable
The identity of the attacker makes a difference to some people when weighing the justification of targeting civilians. When attacks are committed by a military, Americans and Canadians find them more acceptable (47 percent sometimes justified) than when they are committed by an individual (21 percent sometimes justified). Europeans, too, make a distinction, and are more likely to reject individual attacks than military attacks by eight percentage points.
On the other hand, populations in Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, former Soviet countries, and MENA are more likely to view violence targeting civilians as uniformly unacceptable.
OIC Member States Less Likely to View Military Attacks as Sometimes Justified
Evidence refutes the argument that Islam encourages violence more than other religions. Residents of the Organisation of the Islamic Cooperation (OIC) member states are slightly less likely than residents of non-member states to view military attacks on civilians as sometimes justified, and about as likely as those of non-member states to say the same about individual attacks.
Public Support Does Not Predict Violence
It is important to note that public perceptions of civilian attacks do not necessarily predict violence against non-combatants, nor are terrorist activities or war crimes necessarily the result of public support. At the same time, higher levels of public rejection of targeting civilians do suggest a higher respect for the value of human life, a prized asset for any society to cultivate.
Rather than look to religion to explain public acceptance of violence, Gallup's analysis suggests that leaders should consider social and economic development and better governance. Gallup analysts tested correlations between the level at which populations say these attacks are "sometimes justified" and a number of independent indicators, and they found human development and societal stability measures are most strongly related. Find out more about relationships between these attitudes and a number of independent indicators in the full report.
For complete data sets or custom research from the more than 150 countries Gallup continually surveys, please contact SocialandEconomicAnalysis@gallup.com or call 202.715.3030.
About the Abu Dhabi Gallup Center
Building on Gallup's seminal work in the field of Muslim studies, the Abu Dhabi Gallup Center offers unmatched research on the attitudes and aspirations of Muslims around the world. Learn more.
Survey Methods
Results are based on face-to-face interviews with approximately 1,000 adults in each country, aged 15 and older, from 2008 through 2010. For results based on the total sample of adults, one can say with 95 percent confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error ranges from ±1.66 to ±5.8 percentage points. The margin of error reflects the influence of data weighting. In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.
In this analysis, OIC member states included more than 40 predominantly Muslim countries worldwide. Non-OIC member states included more than 80 countries.
For more complete methodology and specific survey dates, please review Gallup's Country Data Set details.
(Originally posted on Gallup.com on September 8, 2011)
Follow Ahmed Younis on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ahmedyounisjd
Desmond Tutu: Made for Goodness
Religious violence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nigeria Torn by Rising Religious Violence - WSJ.com
What does religious violence say about religion? | Psychology Today
And I have no doubt that the vast majority of the people who actually perpetrated these acts would have told the Gallup pollster, "Why, attacks on civilians are NEVER justified! The very idea!"
If we want to determine what effect people's "level of religious devotion" has on their ACTUAL views regarding "justifiable violence," all we need to do is to study history.
And then they present the results of a poll - which is actually does NOT support their claim, in the slightest degree!
In order to determine that "religion colors views about violence," or that "one's religious identity and level of devotion have little to do with one's views about attacking civilians," one would need to compare the views of religious people in a given country with the views of non-religious people in the same country. That is NOT what the poll does, at all. Not one of the charts presented compare the views of religious people with the views of non-religious people in the same region.
This is a perfect example of the deceptive practice of making a bold claim, and then waving a lot of data around, as if the data proved it - and hoping that nobody stops to ask whether the data actually proves anything resembling the claim that was made.
The poll data that the authors have presented does not prove their claim in the slightest degree.
It is obvious that poll was designed to compare the views of populations by geographical area. It does nothing whatever to support the authors amazing claim - which, as we all know, is simply false.
Is this one of those parallel universe deals?
Seriously, you offer a choice of A or B, and say 99% chose A and 99% chose B.
Unpossible!
But, if we take this at face value, it means religions fail to make people more moral also. Religion, if irrelevant as to informing views on violence, is irrelevant to morality itself. In my heuristic view, either the study is methodologically weak, or simply biased in population sampling (ie buddhists, hindus, voodoo, protestants, catholics, ....atheists, marxists).
If you have the data, would be most interested.
hariaum