Terrorists driven by low self-esteem, Florida high schoolers told

[dan_bgblue]

Robert Jones, CEO of the Public Religion Research Institute, cited a 2011 study that found that Americans are more willing — by more than a 3-to-1 margin — to separate the violence of self-professed Christians from Christianity than they are to separate violent behavior of self-professed Muslims from Islam.

The poll, entitled ““Pluralism, Immigration and Civic Integration Survey,” found that 44 percent of all Americans believed self-professed Muslims who committed acts of violence in the name of Islam to truly be Muslims, compared to just 13 percent of those committed acts of violence in the name of Christianity to truly be Christians.

As a whole, younger Americans and college graduates are overwhelmingly more likely to believe that Islam -- as practiced by most Muslims -- does not promote violence, Jones said.

“If you ask that question, Americans are basically divided,” Jones told FoxNews.com. “But education and age is driving a lot of it.”



Linkage (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/05/30/terrorists-driven-by-low-self-esteem-florida-high-schoolers-told/)

[Doc]

Even the title of the poll sounds pompous.

[CitizenBBN]

Here's why the difference in perception:

When a Christian commits atrocities against innocent people, the bishops, priests, almost all anointed religious leaders both lay and ordained will condemn that action as not keeping with Christian faith.

When an Islamist commits those atrocities, you don't have to look very far to find a large number of Muslim clerics with big followings who applaud it and call that person a hero and an example to other Muslims.


that's why the same act is seen as associated with one faith and not with the other. B/c one faith condemns those actions and one helps finance them and calls for more to follow in that example. If we were discussing an historic period like the Crusades, where horrible things were done with the support of the all powerful Church as well as in the name of Islam, and we saw a different treatment, I could see it as a bias, but in the current era Islam has nothing to blame but itself for the view that there is a strong radical element that condones violence and terrorism. That's not a bias, it's true. All the way from the top of the House of Saud and the Wahabi priests of Mecca to the local cleric, there is strong support for use of violence and an utter lack of tolerance.

Christianity is rife with hypocrisy, as "men of God" stand in the pulpit or pews on Sunday and praise all the ethical edicts they abandon the rest of the week, but on the whole Christianity did abandon the violent intolerance of other faiths a long time ago. Islam is in large part stuck in the 1500s, which is why this fascist political movement has taken hold within it. We see that happen from time to time with Christianity, like the KKK wrapping themselves in faith, but nothing on a global scale has approached this new fascist movement. Between the 1500s and now such movements have been politically or ethnically based, almost universally rejecting faith as a component. Within Islam this latest movement has found a home, and far too many of the previous residents are tolerating it.