When the news of a bombing in downtown Oslo, Norway, was closely followed by the shocking mass shooting at a teen youth camp on the island of Utøya, major news outlets were quick to pin the blame for the attacks on Muslim extremists. The New York Times briefly reported that a terrorist organization called "Helpers of Global Jihad" had claimed responsibility, while the British newspaper The Sun declared that the events were "Norway's 9/11." Hours later, it was clear that these early reports that the violence was related to religious extremism were correct, but the religion with which they associated the violence was wrong. The perpetrator turned out to be a blond-haired, blue-eyed Norwegian, Anders Behring Breivik, who publicly identified himself as Christian on his Facebook page and also posted online a 1500-page ideological manifesto in which he declared himself to be a "cultural Christian" crusader standing up for Europe's "Christian culture" against the forces of "Islamization."
This revelation re-opened a fundamental question: Are those who carry out acts of violence in the name of a religion true followers of that religion, or not? A new survey from Public Religion Research Institute, and a new joint report by PRRI and the Brookings Institution, reveals that Americans literally apply a double standard when answering this question, depending on whether the perpetrator is Christian or Muslim. More than eight in 10 (83 percent) Americans say that those who commit violence in the name of Christianity are not truly Christian. On the other hand, less than half (48 percent) of Americans extend this same principle to Muslims and say that those who commit violence in the name of Islam are not truly Muslim.
One way of quantifying the double standard is to evaluate the percentage point difference between a group's willingness to affirm the religious identity of self-proclaimed Christian perpetrators vs. self-proclaimed Muslim perpetrators. This double standard gap is, not surprisingly, most pronounced among those who self-identify as Christian, but different Christian groups employ stronger double standards than others. For example, among white evangelical Protestants, the gap is a staggering 47 percentage points: only 10 percent of evangelicals believe that a self-identified Christian perpetrators are really Christian, compared to 57 percent who believe that self-identified Muslim perpetrators are truly Muslim.
The double standard gap for other Christian groups is also large but significantly lower than the gap among white evangelical Protestants: 27 points each for Catholics and white mainline Protestant, and 23 points for black Protestants. Non-Christian religiously affiliated Americans -- a composite group that includes Muslims along with Jews, Buddhists, Hindus and other minority religions -- have the most consistent approach to these questions, with a double standard gap of only 14 points.
The double standard gap also differs by political party affiliation. The double standard gap is 45 points for both Republicans and Americans who identify with the Tea Party movement, nearly double the size of the gap among Independents (25 points) and Democrats (23 points).
This double standard in evaluating religious violence is related to continuing ambivalence among Americans overall about the place of American Muslims and Islam in the country 10 years after the September 11 terrorist attacks. However, one of the most important patterns that emerged in the survey -- and one that foreshadows how Americans may resolve these issues in the future -- is the unique profile of the Millennial generation (Americans ages 18-29).
Outside of the group that includes American Muslims themselves, Millennials are the least likely group to employ a double standard when evaluating violence by self-proclaimed Christians and Muslims. The double standard gap among Millennials is only 17 points, less than half the gap among seniors (36 points). Consistent with this profile, Millennials are also significantly more likely than the public to express comfort with various kinds of public expressions of Muslim practice, and are more likely to say American Muslims are an important part of the religious community.
What does this mean for the future for Muslims in the U.S.? The Millennial generation is the most religiously and ethnicially diverse generation in American history, and as they come of age it seems likely that they will facilitate a resolution of the public's current ambivalence about the place of American Muslims in society in the manner Americans have solved questions about previous groups such as Catholics and Jews: in favor of acceptance.
The Pluralism, Immigration, & Civic Integration survey was designed and conducted by Public Religion Research Institute. Results of the survey were based on 2,450 bilingual (Spanish and English) telephone interviews, including 804 cell phone interviews, conducted between August 1, 2011 and August 14, 2011. The margin of error is +/-2.0 percentage points for the general sample at the 95 percent confidence interval. The full report, jointly released by PRRI and the Brookings Institution, along with the topline questionnaire and methodology, can be found here.
This article was originally posted by Dr. Jones on his new blog "Figuring Faith" at the Washington Post's On Faith section.
Follow Robert P. Jones, Ph.D. on Twitter: www.twitter.com/publicreligion
The American double standard on religious violence - Figuring Faith ...
RealClearReligion - A Double Standard on Religious Violence
Double Standards and Religious Violence | Crossroads Arabia
Figuring Faith: The Double Standard on Religious Violence : Public ...
Newsvine - Study: American double standard on religious violence
Public Religion Research - Non-Profit Organization - Washington ...
Quoted from the Book Islam in Modern Histroy (Page 109)
Author Wilfred Cantwell Smith.
In Lebanon for example there are Muslim terrorists, Christian terrorists and Jewish terrorists( along the Israel Lebanon border)
But you will not hear of Christian or Jewish terrorists. All acts of violence are put together and wrapped up in the package of ‘Islamic terrorism’.
The conduct of adherents of every religion varies from country to country, from sect to sect, from age to age and from person to person.
How very different is the conduct of Jesus’s disciples from those in Pinochet’s Chile, or in South Africa, who claim to uphold Christian values.
Which is to represent Christianity? Are we to describe the First and Second World wars, in which millions of people lost their lives as Christian wars against humanity?
Any act of war in a Muslim country is perceived in the West as the extension of ‘Islamic terrorism’ but in any other country such an act is seen as a political dispute( Hindus fighting for a separate Tamil Elam in Sri Lanka).
Why must such dual standard of justice prevail? One really begins to wonder if there is an undercurrent of hatred for Islam beneath the apparently calm surface of Christian civilization.
Is it perhaps a hangover from centuries of Crusades against Muslim powers,
Is the old wine of secularists venom served in new goblets.
Ironic that you think it's ignorant to compare them.
If we go with your soft drink analogy, Methodists and Presbyterians might be Pepsi and Coke. Catholics would then be Dr. Pepper. Islam would have to be Grape Nehi or maybe Yoo Hoo.
Oh, the irony of being so ignorant as to find my post ironic...
===
Well, whether Christian or Muslim, THEY certainly seem to think they are true followers of their religion. The better question is this: why does Islam inspire so many more people to violence than Christianity does?
It seems to boil down to the Muslim myth being youngest of the three and is in the same place as the other faiths during their expansion threw conquest phase.
After all the root of both religions is the same. Blood relatives understand each other least of all.
Let me quote a Swedish scholar on this issue.
A Christian sees much in Islam which reminds him of his own religion, but he sees it in the extremely distorted form. He finds ideas and statements of belief clearly related to those of his own religion, but which nevertheless, turns off into strangely different paths.
Islam is so familiar to us that we pass it by with careless indifference with which we ignore that which we know and know only too well.
And yet it is not familiar enough to us to enable us really to understand its uniqueness, and the spirit by which it has won its own place in the sphere of religion, a place which it still rightly occupies by virtue of its very existence.
We find it much easier to understand religions that are completely new and strange to us: as for example, the religions of India and China. A greater degree of insight and of spiritual freedom is required of him who would understand the Arabian Prophet and his book
Tor Andrae in his book
Mohammed: Tha Man and His Faith
It really is true that over time, generations become more tolerant. As long as younger generations become more liberal than their predecessors, time will yield progress. This is why I have hope for the future.