Pax Americana
I found this graph over at Josh Crew’s blog and almost had to look at it twice to really believe it. Maybe I’m reading too much into it but this is basically saying that the only way to peace is by forcing it. Um.. that doesn’t work. Yet another sign that America goes the way of the Roman Empire. The Pax Romana, by the way, was only called that by the Romans themselves. The rest suffered under the boot. More on that later.
How can the members of the religion proclaiming a monopoly on truth and love be the most domineering and intolerant? I believe it comes from culture’s influence on religion.
I’m not naive. I fully understand the balance needed between diplomacy and use of force. But I increasingly get the impression that Americanism is almost synonymous with strength and dominance, in the wrong way. Yes, we are the most charitable country in the history of man. But that doesn’t make us a “Christian nation”. And thank goodness, because if I didn’t know the difference between the true love of Christ and the supposed love of the Church, I wouldn’t want any part of it.
I call it Un-Love. Wake up, Christians.
RSS Feed
RSS by Email
wait…is that how you read the graph? b/c i see it as the higher percentages were under “good diplomacy,” not military strength.
Sorry — to clarify, Ash is right that the higher percentages are under good diplomacy, but what I’m surprised at is how large a number is on the other side, instead of closer to zero. And whats more, its the protestants (and closely related Mormons) who are the most skewed toward military strength. Sorry for any confusion.
I got what you mean. Actually, I’m suprised diplomacy was a high as it was. I would love to see the demographics for those surveyed.
-mike
@mike — its also true that if you were to know the precise demographics, you’d likely find a large number of the proclaimers of any religion to be little more than claiming it as a religion. actual practice is another matter. perhaps that helps understanding how religions seem to contradict themselves in the actions of those who claim them, but I still see the un-love among those who also claim to practice.
thanks for the comments :)
Oh, I’m not worried about practice vs. claims. I’m more worried about the total number surveyed and from where. Those things get extrapolated (sp?) way out of proportion. I’m going to go digging, I’ll be back.
-mike
All of the data can be found here.
http://religions.pewforum.org/
Here is the page of how it was figured out. 35,556 total participants, which is actually not too bad for a survey. The response rate for this survey was 24 percent.
I won’t post everything here, but I will say it is worth looking at the boring side of data to see how a few speak for the entire country. While this is a commom practice, it does not diminish the fact that percentages like these can serioulsly sway public opinion. I have seen the data for polls in the USA Today that sureveyed less than 1000 people and they were all from like NYC or something. Talk about skewed data.
http://religions.pewforum.org/pdf/report2religious-landscape-study-appendix4.pdf
The link above is the actual data behind the survey. Take a look. Do you think 35,556 speaks for the entire country?
-mike
@mike — thanks very much for diggin so much deeper into it. And you’re definitely right about skewed data. Its part of the problem with basing our lives on poll data, especially when dealing with polling organizations that are biased. (not implying pew is, i’m only saying that people can “manufacture” or ask questions in ways that will better result in the results they’re looking for.) The margin of error in poll data is often used to balance this inconsistency but biased pollers are beyond even this. Then, the next question is that what if the percentages are even worse than this? What if the sample doesn’t truly represent america but what if it is biased in the opposite direction? Once again it comes down to the polling organization and dependability of data.
Anyway, thanks again for looking into it more. I guess its even just the suggestion (which seems supportive of my perspective of American beliefs in the first place) that can be troubling.