As for the second line, I'm going to ask you again to be mature and refrain from flaming. Think of it this way: Your personal attacks make any legitimate argument you may have seem childish and petty. By venting your frustration somewhere else, you allow us all to have a more intelligent discussion.

 

Your off topic attacks on Christianity/Catholicism make any legitimate argument you may have seem childish and petty. By venting your frustration somewhere else, you allow us all to have a more intelligent discussion.

 

They're not off-topic at all: we take off our shoes and have cavity searches because we're afraid of adherents to one religion, while ignoring the adherents to another religion shooting people and waging a holy war in the Middle East.

 

There's a strong link between religion and terrorism, and you don't get to single out one group in a pathetic attempt to justify your xenophobia.

Your claims that other religions have the same link are baseless. Find me a study that says 10% of Christians support attacks on innocent civilians, and then we'll discuss it. Until then, piss off.

 

Such respect.

 

Actions speak louder than words, and in this case, both parties certainly do quite a bit more than beat their chests:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

http://blog.sojo.net/2009/05/22/was-iraq-a-holy-war/

http://www.alternet.org/news/140221/bush%27s_shocking_biblical_prophecy_emerges:_god_wants_to_%22%3berase%22%3b_mid-east_enemies_%22%3bbefore_a_new_age_begins%22%3b/

 

Never mind the fact that Blackwater can (and currently is) waging a holy war entirely on their own. I (and others) have already questioned the credibility of the study, and I believe that a Carl Sagan quote is in order:

 

“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.”

 

You can't draw conclusions about a study that has not been conducted: however, if properly worded, and with a selected demographic (as in the study that you've provided) I'm sure that I could do considerably better than 10%.

I'm sorry, but you need to pay more attention to your own thread. By both your OP definition of terrorism and the "innocent civilians" thing above, the US military commits terrorism in the Middle East. Many Americans (Christian or not) support this. Is this not exactly what you are asking for?

 

As far as links go, I can go ask my semi-Christian mother if she supports the American military and then put the results on a web page, if you'd like.

So find a freaking study that says "10% of Christians support attacks on civilian Arabs". Because that's the question that was asked, and that's the response. The question was not at all equivalent to "Do you support the US military," or "Do you support the war in the middle east." The question was literally "Do you support attacks on US civilians?"

 

Your mother does not make a good population. If you picked 1000 random names out of the phone book, called them and recorded their response, then determined the appropriate P values, standard errors and confidence intervals, I'd be more inclined to believe what you have to say. Until then, its all baseless attacks on Christianity, which is off topic and hateful.

I'm sorry, but you need to pay more attention to your own thread. By both your OP definition of terrorism and the "innocent civilians" thing above, the US military commits terrorism in the Middle East. Many Americans (Christian or not) support this. Is this not exactly what you are asking for?

 

As far as links go, I can go ask my semi-Christian mother if she supports the American military and then put the results on a web page, if you'd like.

So find a freaking study that says "10% of Christians support attacks on civilian Arabs". Because that's the question that was asked, and that's the response. The question was not at all equivalent to "Do you support the US military," or "Do you support the war in the middle east." The question was literally "Do you support attacks on US civilians?"

 

Your mother does not make a good population. If you picked 1000 random names out of the phone book, called them and recorded their response, then determined the appropriate P values, standard errors and confidence intervals, I'd be more inclined to believe what you have to say. Until then, its all baseless attacks on Christianity, which is off topic and hateful.

 

Lol.

 

I don't think that 1,000 people from a phone book is a great sample.

 

You believe that it is acceptable to disguise your xenophobia with poorly sourced and produced statistics from a single source, and then demand a study that would show Christianity in a negative way: hardly a likelihood in the US. So, only hate directed towards Islam, and not religion i n general, is acceptable?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

 

You can't draw conclusions about a study that has not been conducted: however, if properly worded, and with a selected demographic (as in the study that you've provided) I'm sure that I could do considerably better than 10%.

And everyone SPECULATING the results of a non-existent survey and ARGUING THE RESULTS OF THAT THEORETICAL SURVEY gets us somewhere how?

 

You believe that it is acceptable to disguise your xenophobia with poorly sourced and produced statistics from a single source, and then demand a study that would show Christianity in a negative way: hardly a likelihood in the US.

Right, so tell me, Who conducted the survey?

I think it would be super easy to get a 25% or higher of Christians who would accept the killing of homosexuals. Very easy.

 

Oh no I was not supposed to say that. Christians are loving people, what am I thinking.

You can throw around all the terms you want to try and label somebody, but sees all has a point. If you can find an equal study to back up your opinion you are encouraged to, but without such, you have to ask whether you have a leg to stand on in the argument.

The study you ask for would be very difficult to conduct and probably not be shared publicly as its results would be extremely questionable. That is why there are no studies indicating ANYTHING about the issue. I would be surprised if you were able to find a study that proves the contrary.

 

However, do either of you deny that many (say, at least ten percent) Americans, Christians included, support the US military, and acts of the US military can fall under the umbrella of terrorism and often harm civilians?

I agree with the second and last statement, but not the middle one. Yes people support military actions and that military action has the potential to harm civilians, however, I do not consider it terrorism. It does not set out to harm civilians which terrorism does so cannot be compared to the original study of the topic.

I agree with the second and last statement, but not the middle one. Yes people support military actions and that military action has the potential to harm civilians, however, I do not consider it terrorism. It does not set out to harm civilians which terrorism does so cannot be compared to the original study of the topic.

I think the Wikileaks documents confirmed that US knowingly risked the lives of civilians, and may have even intentionally killed civilians with terrorist connections. Look at it from the Muslim side: The enemy terrorists have massive numbers and massive weapons to back them up. The general public of the Western world supports them, or at least doesn't fight against allowing them to continue. Is their terrorism not just as justified?

Here is a study conducted among Americans, following the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/jul04/Torture_Jul04_quaire.pdf

The questions were related to Iraqi detainees, suspected to be terrorists.

 

More than 80% of Americans reject torturing a prospective terrorist to get information from them, which is completely different than "attacking Muslim/Arab civilians"

This also leads me to believe that the percentage of Americans that support harming Muslim civilians is much less than the percentage of Muslims that support harming American civilians.

 

EDIT:

I took me 3 minutes to find that survey. So much for it being "too difficult to find"

Here is a study conducted among Americans, following the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/jul04/Torture_Jul04_quaire.pdf

The questions were related to Iraqi detainees, suspected to be terrorists.

 

More than 80% of Americans reject torturing a prospective terrorist to get information from them, which is completely different than "attacking Muslim/Arab civilians"

This also leads me to believe that the percentage of Americans that support harming Muslim civilians is much less than the percentage of Muslims that support harming American civilians.

 

EDIT:

I took me 3 minutes to find that survey. So much for it being "too difficult to find"

 

And yet, there is about zero pressure on Obama from either side of the political spectrum to shut down Gitmo... again, actions speak far louder than words.

 

Very few people will admit to supporting torture.

Very few people will admit to supporting torture.

Few Americans support torture, but lots of Americans support killing Arab civilians? Or no, you used that key word "admit" like everyone supports it deep down... :rolleyes:

Here is a study conducted among Americans, following the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/pdf/jul04/Torture_Jul04_quaire.pdf

The questions were related to Iraqi detainees, suspected to be terrorists.

 

More than 80% of Americans reject torturing a prospective terrorist to get information from them, which is completely different than "attacking Muslim/Arab civilians"

This also leads me to believe that the percentage of Americans that support harming Muslim civilians is much less than the percentage of Muslims that support harming American civilians.

 

EDIT:

I took me 3 minutes to find that survey. So much for it being "too difficult to find"

That survey says nothing about terrorism. Had I found it, you would have said it wasn't specific enough. Regardless,

Q19. Terrorist groups obviously do not feel obliged to abide by international laws against torture and abuse. So the US should not feel obliged to always be limited by these laws when dealing with terrorists.

Convincing........................................................................52%

...

The survey in the OP says nothing about terrorism. Have you read it?