egafd.com

According to this year's Pew report on the oppression, persecution and harassment of religious people, it finds that Christians are persecuted (ranging from low to very high) in 110 countries around the world. Likewise, Muslims are second amongst the world's most persecuted being persecuted in 109 countries globally.

It is of no surprise, obviously, that the two main religions on the planet are also the most persecuted.........just because of sheer numbers.

What is interesting is that of the countries that are implementing 'very high' levels of persecution/government restrictions on religion, 20 out of 24 nations are either Islamic states, or majority Muslim populations.

The 'very high' list is as follows:

Egypt
China
Iran
Saudi Arabia
Indonesia
Maldives
Afghanistan
Syria
Eritrea
Somalia*
Russia
Burma (Myanmar)
Uzbekistan
Malaysia
Azerbaijan
Tajikistan
Pakistan
Brunei
Morocco
Sudan
Algeria
Iraq
Kazakhstan
Vietnam

What's interesting about this is that, given Muslims and Christians are persecuted, oppressed, harassed and threatened in about equal numbers across the world, because most of the worst persecution is in mainly Islamic countries, it means that Christians are suffer persecution the most from Muslims. It also shows that Muslims are mainly persecuted by other Muslims (sunni vs shia vs salafi vs sufi etc.).

Of the 4 countries that are not majority Muslim, two are officially atheist states (China and Vietnam) and only one is Christian (Russia). Obviously, the atheist states are also one-party Communist states, thereby seeing any religion as a threat to their influence and control of the people, and Russia, not that long being released from Communism's grip, may account for their views on religious practices.

Is it better for a Shia family to be wiped out by:

1. Sunnis or..

2. Cluster bombs dropped by the "Allies" on a "crusade".

Dunno how David's question is relevant to the Pew report and it's findings.

Stop beating about the (George?) bush and say it how it is. You hate Muslims and will find any excuse to apparently back up your claim of how evil these Muslims are. Okay some Muslims are intolerant fuckers but so are some Christians too. So all you haters have more in common than you think. Are you suggesting to go to war with these Muslims? Legally or illegally? (Oh no. Not that chestnut again).

Wow.

Do you know how many arguments and hours I've put in defending Muslims against the racists on here this past 8 years? That I've been called a 'guardianista', a 'leftist', a 'hand wringer' etc etc etc for doing such a thing?

I guess you didn't.

Your implications are just as bad as their's.......if not worse.

I defend Muslims, I'm a muesli-eating, beret-wearing leftist. If I criticise Islam (in this case I didn't, but we'll let that pass) I'm a Muslim hater. All nonsense. All politics. All childish stuff because people are scared of anything that smashes down their own preconceptions and views in life.

It's an independent, respected poll about religious persecution. Nothing else. Maybe you ought to ask yourself why this poll made you so uncomfortable, that rather than except/challenge the findings, come to your own conclusions and then compare them to your own views and beliefs about the world, you found it easier to imply I'm some sort of closeted bigot. Surely then you have to look at yourself.

In my opinion, what's important here is what's true and how we can change things for the better. There's got to be a healthy, sensible path where you can defend Muslims against racists while at the same time criticising Islam for the bad things it's responsible for. The fact I've been attacked from both sides on this issues is quite comforting when I think about it. Maybe being impartial means I have to upset people on both sides when it comes to such emotive subjects. I can live with that, but I won't accept your silly implications.

Samuel,

As usual you seem confused.

To Cockneygeezer

"Do you know how many arguments and hours I've put in defending Muslims against the racists on here this past 8 years? That I've been called a 'guardianista', a 'leftist', a 'hand wringer' etc etc etc for doing such a thing?"

Yet here,

"Despite my hatred of Islam," and "It is sad, though, that no one on the left wants to stand up and criticise such an intolerant theology that goes against everything that it is to be 'leftist' , not forgetting "Forget feminism, fighting for the proletariat and economics, it's all about a bronze-aged death cult now."

Must have been a different Sam Slater posting......

And, as usual, David shows his slimey side again.........either that or he's too stupid to distinguish between hating a religion and defending the religious. (I give him the credit of knowing the difference, which just leaves 'slimey'.).

As you can see, I posted a link to a Pew research poll.........often used in BBC and Guardian articles and respected for their nonpartisan approach and impartiality on many topics, and David and cockneygeezer2009 are making the whole thread about me.

No challenging of the poll's results. No defence or explanation that might explain the findings........nothing. It's now about me.

Why? Because the poll's findings do not tally with their own views.

I'll ignore your insults and your laughable way of responding to my posts by linking to a third party rather than my post, but instead concentrate on your arguments.

As an observation, I do seem to really unsettle you, Sam, because the old Slater attempt at logic goes out of the window and you start spewing insults when I begin to press you on topics.

"he's too stupid to distinguish between hating a religion and defending the religious"

So you are defending Muslims for following a "Bronze Age death cult" to use your phrase and a religion that you hate?

You have lots of problems here, Sam. For example, although the Nazi party was overwhelmingly Christian in its religious adherence, I would never describe Christianity as a "Bronze Age death cult" that led to the deaths of 6 million Jews. I would call that a perversion of religious belief mixed in with a messianic statist approach.

You haven't that option have you? According to you Islam is the religion that is the death cult and that it is the tenets of the actual religion that make it defensible to mistreat unbelievers and for Muslim gangs to think it is acceptable to treat young, white, vulnerable girls in a disgusting way as I recall you argued in a previous thread.

So the questions that come to mind based on your view that Islam is hateful and a Bronze Age death cult are as follows:

1. Given that getting on towards 3 million people in the UK define themselves as Muslims and have demonstrably a much greater adherence to religious worship than UK CHristians have, why has this Bronze Age death cult that you call Islam not resulted in huge bloodshed on the streets of Britain?

2. Is it because UK Muslims are Muslims in name only because they clearly do not follow that hateful death cult that is Islam?

3. Do you therefore defend, Isis, Boko Haram and the Muslims that fight with them? After all, they are merely following the tenets of a hateful religion.

I await your answers with interest. Give the insults a rest please. It's an admission of defeat.

Again, David has nothing to say on the topic of this thread: that Islamic states, or countries that are predominantly Islamic, are responsible for the majority of religious persecution.

If the results of this poll are wrong, let someone come forward and say so.

It matters not what anyone thinks about Islam. The facts don't care. I, obviously posted this because, while I despise most religions, I think the fashionable mantra of 'all religions are the same' is obviously a cop-out. It's designed to avoid uncomfortable truths and deviate from a path based on fear........fear of being thought of as racist (or fear of the other in the case of racists).

Making this thread about me is an obvious diversionary tactic - even if that tactic is a subconscious one. It's so engrained, they don't know they're doing it.