|
Jihad on Denmark - freedom of expression rears its ugly head once again... (pg. 30)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lepanto |
| quote: | Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
What percentage NEVER attend church? I think you forgot those people. |
haha ing owned. |
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
Woah is the day when the fury of the anti-West reaches Ronald...
...and no, that's not photoshopped...
>>Source<< |
It looks Photoshopped to me for some reason.
And Groundhog Boy, USA Today is not some joke paper, if they published these stats then they are meaningful. I'm guessing the % of people who never ever attend church in the US is so miniscule that it doesn't figure in their results, otherwise they would've mentioned it. |
|
|
| Lepanto |
No because there are more than enough athiests, Jews, Muslims and people of other faiths. like I said
"There three lies; lies, damn lies and STATISTICS" they don't mean a thing. |
|
|
| HardTranceProd |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lepanto
No because there are more than enough athiests, Jews, Muslims and people of other faiths. like I said
|
Jews, Muslims and people of other faiths would be included in the group that worships a god/religion and goes to places of worship.
What is not clear about that?? :conf: "church" is an all-encompassing term, as in "church vs. state" |
|
|
| Lepanto |
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
Jews, Muslims and people of other faiths would be included in the group that worships a god/religion and goes to places of worship.
What is not clear about that?? :conf: "church" is an all-encompassing term, as in "church vs. state" |
no no, if it was church as in mass religion it'd be seperate of religion and state ;) since this was drawn up a long time it was church and church only. furthermore, the study said CHURCH, if you have so much faith in a newspaper that doesn't know how to use the words "place of worship" then i guess that explains alot.
and once again why that statistic is bull; you said yourself there's a supposedly tiny part of the population that doesn't go to A PLACE OF WORSHIP but 84+16=100 so therefore 100% of the US visits a place of worship. See why statistics in general are bull yet? |
|
|
| Groundhog Boy |
| quote: | Originally posted by HardTranceProd
It looks Photoshopped to me for some reason.
And Groundhog Boy, USA Today is not some joke paper, if they published these stats then they are meaningful. I'm guessing the % of people who never ever attend church in the US is so miniscule that it doesn't figure in their results, otherwise they would've mentioned it. |
Here's some conflicting data for you. I'm not going to disagree that there are a lot of people in this country that attend church frequently, but it's not 80-90% as you claim. Also, remember that in some sections of the country, church is a major SOCIAL event, and less a quest for religion. A good pop culture example is the Simpsons. As someone who's parents made him attend church weekly until turning 16, I'd say that's a pretty fair depiction of what many families in my parents' church are like
| quote: | World-wide data:
The Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan periodically conducts the World Values Survey. It polls a statistically valid sample of adults from a total of 60 nations. Some of their findings from their 1995-1997 survey:
The United States has a higher level of church attendance than any other country which is "at a comparable level of development."
53% of Americans consider religion to be very important in their lives. This compares with 16% in Britain, 14% in France and 13% in Germany.
The importance of religion has been declining in developed countries.
In those countries which are "experiencing economic stagnation and political uncertainty," the importance of religion is high.
Political scientist Ronald Inglehart, one of the authors of the Institute's 1998 survey commented: "Although church attendance is declining in nearly all advanced industrial societies, spiritual concerns more broadly defined are not. In fact, in most industrial societies, a growing share of the population is spending time thinking about the meaning and purpose of life." 1
Percent of adults who attend religious services at least once a week:
In order of decreasing attendance:
Country % Attendance
Nigeria 89%
Ireland 84% *
Philippines 68%
N. Ireland 58%
Puerto Rico 52%
South Africa 56%
Poland 55%
Portugal 47% *
Slovakia 47%
Mexico 46%
Italy 45% *
Dominican Republic 44%
Belgium 44%
United States 44%
Turkey 43%
Peru 43%
India 42%
Canada 38% *
Brazil 36%
Netherlands 35%
Venezuela 31%
Uruguay 31%
Austria 30% *
Britain 27% *
Chile 25%
Argentina 25%
Spain 25%
Solvenia 22%
Croatia 22%
Hungary 21% *
France 21% *
Romania 20% *
Switzerland 16%
Australia 16%
Lithuania 16%
South Korea 14%
W. Germany 14%
Czech Republic 14% *
Taiwan 11%
Bulgaria 10% *
Ukraine 10%
Moldova 10%
Georgia 10%
China 9%
Armenia 8%
Serbia 7%
Montenegro 7%
Azerbaijan 6%
Belarus 6%
Latvia 5%
Denmark 5% *
Norway 5%
East Germany 5%
Sweden 4%
Iceland 4%
Finland 4%
Estonia 4%
Japan 3%
Russia 2%
* Based on 1990-1991 survey data.
These numbers are somewhat suspect. Church attendance data in the U.S. has been checked against actual values using two different techniques. The true figures show that only about 20% of Americans and 10% of Canadians actually go to church one or more times a week. Many Americans and Canadians tell pollsters that they have gone to church even though they have not. Whether this happens in other countries, with different cultures, is difficult to predict.
The Institute's 1998 study involved almost 166,000 people. They found that church attendance was in decline in 15 of 19 industrialized democracies. Only two showed small increases: Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Attendance in East Germany continues to decline, having dropped from 20% in 1991 to 9% in 1998. Five of eight ex-communist societies show an increase in church attendance. 2
Attendance at religious services by Americans and Canadians:
Item USA Canada
Attend at least weekly 43% 20%
Never/almost never attend 8% 38%
Data is from 1999. 3 For years, pollsters have been asking adult Americans whether they go to church regularly. The results have not changed much over time. Recent estimates of the percentage of adult Americans who claimed to have attended weekly services during the past week are:
38% by the National Opinion Research Center
44% by the Institute for Social Research's World Values survey. This institute is located at the University of Michigan. 4
41% by the Barna Research Group Attendance over the previous week dropped from 49% in 1991 to 41% in 1999 5
40% by National Election Studies. Their poll shows that in 1996, 25% of adult Americans claimed to attend church, synagogue or temple every week; 12% almost every week; 16% once or twice a month, 18% a few times a year, and 30% never. 6 Assuming that "almost every week" means 3 weeks out of 4, then these data indicate 40% attendance.
The Gallup Organization measured attendance at 41% during 2001-MAY. 8
The figure of 40% church attendance appears widely in the media.
But, two studies have cast a grave doubt on these data:
Sociologist Stanley Presser (also of the University of Maryland) completed a study of notes in personal diaries that were written between the mid '60s until the '90s. They found that many Americans were not at church when they claimed to be. Their best estimate is that church attendance was about 26% during that interval.
Recent studies have been made of individual counties in both the U.S. and Canada. Researchers counted individuals as they went into church, synagogue, etc. They later interviewed a random sampling of adults in the county. They found that the survey results were inflated by about 100% from the actual attendance figures. Although about 40% of the American adults said that they attended church, the actual value was about 20%. Canadians lied by the same percentage.
The only Western Christian country which has a church attendance higher than that of the U.S. is Ireland. More than 90% of adults went to church during the 1960's. A poll by Irish Marketing Surveys released in 1999-DEC, found that only half of the population of the Irish Republic currently attended church weekly. (This is a reduction from about 63% in 1998). 10% went once a month; 5% went on holy days; 13% never went to church at all. A spokesperson for the Archbishop of Dublin blamed the recent reduction on a series of sex scandals by priests in the Roman Catholic church. 7
The next highest church attendance is believed to be Canada where 20% of the adult population say that they go to church weekly. Again, half were lying, as only about 10% actually attend church weekly.
Fluctuation in church attendance after the 9-11 terrorist attacks:
There was a surge in church attendance after the terrorist attacks on New York City and Washington on 2001-SEP-11. Some religious leaders predicted that the phenomenon would be short lived. Others saw it as the start of a major revival in the U.S. According to the New York Times, Franklin Graham, son of the well known Christian evangelist, Rev. Billy Graham, hailed it as an enduring turn toward God. On NOV-20, Fundamentalist Christian Pat Robertson said that the attack was "bringing about one of the greatest spiritual revivals in the history of America...People are turning to God. The churches are full." 8
It appears that, with the exception of the New York City area, the increase lasted only about two months. By NOV-26, attendance had returned to normal. The New York Times cites data from the Gallup Organization, which shows that religious attendance rose from 41% in 2001-MAY to 47% by SEP-21. By early November, attendance had sunk back to 42%.
The director of the Center for the Study of Religion at Princeton University, Robert Wuthnow, said that the terrorists' attacks have not changed the basic makeup of the U.S.:
About one in four of American adults is devoutly religious;
one in four is secular, and
the remaining half is mildly interested about religion.
Wuthnow said: "We are in some ways a very religious country, especially compared to Western Europe. But we're of two minds, and the other mind is that we really are pretty secular. We are very much a country of consumers and shoppers, and we're quite materialistic. And as long as we can kind of paste together a sense of control through our ordinary work and our ordinary purchases, we're pretty happy to do that."
Rabbi Ronald S. Roth of West End Synagogue in Nashville, TN, said: "We did see a larger influx for the holidays, and the mood was very intense. I can't say, however, that this increased interest in services has been sustained...When people face such a tragic and horrible event, they need comfort, they need community, they need to relate to their God and their traditions, and try to find a way to get through the pain. Once I think people got past some of the initial shock and difficulties, they started to get back to how it was before."
A poll conducted by Barna Research Group showed no increase in 11 of the 13 key measures of religiosity due to the terrorist attacks.
References:
1. Diane Swanbrow, "Study of worldwide rates of religiosity, church attendance," University of Michigan news release at: http://www.umich.edu/~newsinfo/Releases/1997/
2. Maranatha Christian Journal, "Study: Fewer Americans Seek Spiritual Answers From Church," at: http://www.mcjonline.com/news/00/20000118e.htm
3. Millennium Study by Taylor Nelson Sofres Intersearch. Reviewed by Maranatha Christian Journal for 1999-DEC-13 at: http://www.mcjonline.com/news/news3707.htm Church attendance data at: http://www.intersearch.tnsofres.com/gia/US_Religion.pdf This is an Acrobat PDF file. You can obtain a free software to read these files from Adobe.
4. "Study of worldwide rates of religiosity, church attendance," 1997-DEC-10 at: http://www.umich.edu/~newsinfo/Releases/1997/Dec97/
5. "Annual survey of America's faith shows no significant changes in past year." See: http://www.barna.org/PressNoSignificantChanges.htm
6. "Church Attendance 1970 - 1996," National Election Studies at: http://www.umich.edu/~nes/nesguide/toptables/
7. "Survey says Irish church attendance at lowest level," CWNews.com, 1999-DEC-18
8. Laurie Goodstein, "As Attacks' Impact Recedes, a Return to Religion as Usual," New York Times, 2001-NOV-26, at: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/26/ |
Source
Sorry, but most of the reference links are now dead, as this story is over 5 years old. The site itself is a Canadian site whose goal is promoting religious tolerance and freedom, so it's not like they're a bunch of atheists trying to undermine studies in an attempt to condemn religion.
Oh, and lastly, sorry, but USA Today is kind of a joke paper. It's definitely dumbed down for the masses who couldn't grasp some of the topics that more respected papers cover. |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
Some further news. Starting out with the bad ones, Norway has apparently inforced a law against blasphemy.:
I guess "Life of Brian", several issues of MAD, the Simpsons, etc. will soon be banned in Norway. Incredible that these guys stood up to the Nazis in WW2. Maybe all the brave and principled Norwegians were wiped out back then, and only the cowards were left to reproduce.:conf: |
In an attempt to defuse the Norway allegation somewhat, I've been informed that the actual law in question is Penal code section 142.
And while it is a law against blasphemy, the law is a "sleeper" law of sorts that has been on the books since 1902, was last used in 1933 or 1934 (the accused was aquitted), and has never been used since. Is there any confirmation that they plan on enforcing this law from a legitimate media source? No offense to Islam-online ... |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
In an attempt to defuse the Norway allegation somewhat, I've been informed that the actual law in question is Penal code section 142.
And while it is a law against blasphemy, the law is a "sleeper" law of sorts that has been on the books since 1902, was last used in 1933 or 1934 (the accused was aquitted), and has never been used since. Is there any confirmation that they plan on enforcing this law from a legitimate media source? No offense to Islam-online ... |
Interesting, someone in the Swedish forum told me the same. Anyhow, I read an article about our history of blasphemy laws in Sweden, and apperntly we had similar laws until about 1970 when they were removed because they were outdated, funny norway hasn't done the same.
It seems like they changed it though in the '70s if you read that link you posted (you read norweigian btw occrider? :p), but probably just changed it from only accounting Christianity to any kind of religion. |
|
|
| trancaholic |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
In an attempt to defuse the Norway allegation somewhat, I've been informed that the actual law in question is Penal code section 142.
And while it is a law against blasphemy, the law is a "sleeper" law of sorts that has been on the books since 1902, was last used in 1933 or 1934 (the accused was aquitted), and has never been used since. Is there any confirmation that they plan on enforcing this law from a legitimate media source? No offense to Islam-online ... |
This is quite interesting - can I ask where you got your information from? |
|
|
| occrider |
| quote: | Originally posted by trancaholic
This is quite interesting - can I ask where you got your information from? |
Some helpful Norweeegans on an economics forum I post in. Here's another indication that it's bogus:
| quote: |
Wednesday 15 February 2006
Islam Online claim that Norway passed anti-blasphemy legislation bogus
Editors’note: We reported 14 hours ago Islam Online’s claim that Norway had passed an anti-blasphemy law with a word of caution, since Judeoscope was unable to confirm the news story independently. Calls to Norvegian diplomats and a review of Norway’s press reveal that if the Nordic country had indeed passed such legislation, its parliament is doing a magnificient job at hiding it from its constituents. It is, however, more likely that the report is tantamount to a propaganda ploy reflecting the wishful thinking of Muslim Brother Yusuf al-Qaradawi and his mouthpiece, Islam Online.
Judeoscope.ca - Norway’s Parliament adopted a law criminalizing blashemy, reports Islam Online, the European mouthpiece of Muslim Brotherhood preacher Yusuf Al-Qaradawi.
Islam Online quotes Norway’s Deputy Archbishop Oliva Howika as saying that "Law 150-A, which has been approved by parliament, criminalizes blasphemy and clearly prohibits despising others or lampooning religions in any form of expression, including the use of photographs". Howika was speaking to reporters in Doha after a meeting with Yusuf Al-Qaradawi.
Al-Qaradawi, in a sermon aired on February 3rd by Qatar TV had called on the Muslim Ummah to "rage in anger" against Danish cartoons of Mohammed and declared Western "governments must be pressured to demand that the U.N. adopt a clear resolution or law that categorically prohibits affronts to prophets" (translation by MEMRI).
Al-Qaradawi, one of the most influential Muslim preachers in the world has his own show on Al-Jazeera and is head of the European Council for Fatwa and Research.
Judeoscope could not confirm this information independently at the time of publication.
http://www.judeoscope.ca/breve.php3?id_breve=0758
|
|
|
|
| occrider |
Ummm wtf is going on in Britain?
| quote: |
Extremist Muslim groups to be banned
Alan Travis and Patrick Wintour
Thursday February 16, 2006
The Guardian
Extremist Muslim groups who "glorify" terrorism are likely to be banned in Britain as early as this summer after Tony Blair yesterday overcame his second backbench rebellion this week to impose new laws designed to clamp down on the celebration of terrorism in speech, placards or on the internet.
MPs voted by 327 to 279, a majority of 38, to reinstate the laws banning the glorification of terrorism, a phrase untried in the legal battle against terrorism in Europe or the US. Only 17 Labour backbenchers rebelled yesterday, 10 fewer than the last time MPs debated the issue in November.
Two of the prominent groups likely to be banned are Hizb ut-Tahrir and Omar Bakri's al-Muhajiroun, groups already named by Tony Blair.
Ministers by convention usually wait two months to implement new legislation but the home secretary, Charles Clarke, is to accelerate this timetable to ensure police and security services can use the new powers as soon as possible.
Mr Blair, relieved at navigating three perilous votes on identity cards, smoking and terror, described yesterday's victory as "comprehensive" and "a signal of strength".
He said the passage of the law yesterday means that any repeat showing of the kind of offensive placards celebrating the July 7 bombings exhibited at the demonstration a fortnight ago in London will lead to prosecutions. Critics claim existing incitement laws already make such prosecutions possible.
Officials are expected to start work on drawing up proscription orders, to be approved by parliament, banning extremist groups who "glorify" terrorism. The legislation also allows successor groups to be banned to overcome the problem of organisations that simply go underground by changing their names.
This will extend proscription for the first time in Britain beyond those organisations which are directly involved in terrorist activity.
A triumphant Mr Blair claimed the government had won the argument. He said: "The new law will mean that if people are going to start celebrating acts of terrorism or condoning people who engage in terrorism, they will be prosecuted, and if they do not come from this country, they should not be in this country. We have free speech in this country, but you cannot abuse it."
He said yesterday's vote represented a vital signal of strength "in circumstances where the threat is not just from the individual acts of terrorism, but the people who try to entice other people or recruit other people into doing it".
His aides argued that this week's trio of votes strengthened Mr Blair's hand ahead of a potential showdown over the education bill, due to be published later in the month after the parliamentary recess. They also suggested that it doused speculation that Mr Blair would have to give way to his chancellor, Gordon Brown in the near future.
There had been fears, expressed in cabinet last Thursday, that this week could see Commons defeats and a possible ministerial slanging match during the smoking vote. Mr Blair saw his plans for ID cards sail through the Commons on Monday, albeit with concessions.
The battle yesterday on terror laws raged both as a broad political trial of strength between the parties in the fight against terrorism, and as an often obscure legal dispute over which wording in the legislation clamped down most effectively on rhetorical encouragement of terrorism.
The shadow attorney general Dominic Grieve claimed Mr Blair was staging a fake confrontation, posturing to the world, seeking cheap headlines and then leaving others to clear up the mess he had created. William Hague, standing in for David Cameron at prime ministers questions, accused the government of "press release politics" and "ineffective authoritarianism".
The Tories claimed a new criminal offence of indirect encouragement of terrorism was sufficient. Such was the anger on Tory benches that Mr Cameron left the hospital bedside of his wife and newborn son to vote.
The home secretary Charles Clarke claimed the Tory backed motion, built round debarring indirect encouragement of terrorism, was too narrow, and drafted to exclude written encouragement of terrorism, including on placards and internet sites. Mr Grieve appeared to accept this by admitting in debate yesterday he could reword the amendment to cover placards and the internet.
Mr Clarke also limited the rebellion by repeatedly reassuring backbenchers that the glorification clause would only cover those who clearly and recklessly intend to encourage terrorism.
He said the word glorification had appeared clearly in the Labour manifesto, and had been endorsed in a recent UN security council resolution. Mr Clarke added he was willing to review the phrase if Lord Carlile, the government's terror advisor, came up with a fresh definition late this year.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/terr...1710761,00.html
|
So what effect will this have in Ireland? It's turning out to be a sad year for free speech in general. |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
| quote: | Originally posted by occrider
Ummm wtf is going on in Britain? |
Yeah wtf is going on there :S Didn't they sue a newspaper there for publishing the pictures too, and another one had to pull their pictures on a court order? Just something I remember I read but as always when you want an article that you read a while ago in some random newspaper it's impossible to find it =/ |
|
|
|
|
