The Meta-Poll and the Division of Church and State

Regular readers know how charmed the undersigned is by polls and surveys: not! But now there's the BBC World Islam-West relations survey that polled people in 27 countries and it might actually be considered a valid one since those questioned may actually influence the outcome on the ground.

Its most significant find was that an average οf 56% see that common ground between the Muslim and the Western world, could be found. That's a majority, but let's be honest, not one that could bear the epithet overwhelming, but still - let's call it realistic.

There's hardly a news outlet of any description that doesn't carry the results. So I thought to conduct a meta-survey of my own in an understated sort of way: a little poll of polls. I took five articles from different parts of the world and tried to see what stands out. No scientific conclusions of course and I don't propose to repeat their findings, so the links are included:

1. The original BBC World article ("Poll sees hope in West-Islam ties");
2. Today's Zaman from Turkey ("Global Public rejects 'clash of civilizations');
3. Gulf News ("Majority do not believe world is locked in a 'clash of civilizations');
4. The Muslim News from London (West, Islam tensions caused by 'political power', says poll");
5. Canada.com ("Many blame Islamic-Western tensions on 'intolerant minorities', poll finds").

I use the term positive where it means that common ground can be found. If a violent conflict is seen as inevitable, I use the term negative.

1. The original BBC World article breaks down 12 countries surveyed, but surprisingly has no interest in Egypt. It singles out Nigeria as an ominous example, theatre of frequent clashes of civilization. The figures for that country break down as follows: 56% see religion as the source of tensions, but still as much as 53% are positive, while 37% are negative.

2. The Turkish paper is the only one that breaks down the positive stand in Christians (51%) and Muslims (55%). Of the European countries surveyed it only finds Germany and Russia of enough interest to list. It also mentions Nigeria (see 1. for figures). It lists the U.S., but not the U.K., France and Canada.

3. Gulf News gives no breakdown at all and concentrates on the averages: 56% positive, 28% negative, 52% blame politics and 29% point the finger at religion.

4. Muslim News from London is a little more specific: it lists Lebanon, the U.S., the U.K., the Catholic bulwark Italy, multicultural flagship Canada, France, and Mexico as the positive outsider (69%). It also goes heavily down on the averages: 55% of Muslims surveyed blame politics, of the negatives 35% are Muslim while 27% is Christian. Religion is blamed by 26% and 58% point the finger at violent minorities.

5. The only thing that really stands out is that Canada is cooking the books in Nigeria: while the original poll says that 53% surveyed see common ground, Canada.com maintains that 63% say an accord can be reached (about what?!).

While the German Government is subsidizing English language 'high culture' website Signandsight for the express purpose of 'countering' the dominance of American influence of their own language, and hired a French editor to do so (oh, grow up!), the vilified right-wing transatlantic press is busy writing the finest articles on Islam that I've seen in a long time. While Europe is passively contemplating its own slow suicide by multiculturalism through fruitless debate based on personal opinion, America is analyzing the problem and is trying to solve it in a realistic fashion.

It may be anathema for those that seek a solution in an idealistic nowhere land, but Townhall.com's columnist Frank Pastore in a two part article "Islam is not the Enemy" (parts I and II) in part I sums it up as follows:

"Lastly, of the many things it means to be an American, it certainly means that you will fight for the political right of your neighbor to be theologically wrong–that’s the Constitution. An American believes that you can be any religion–or no religion–that you choose, as long as you don’t try to legitimize an immoral act in the name of your religion, such as polygamy, temple prostitution, or illicit drug use. Our Founders believed it best to be a Christian people with a secular form of government, and this hybrid is in large part evidence of the genius of this experiment in self-government. It is a testimony of our greatness that we would fight to protect the right of Muslims to worship freely in America. Let’s make the distinction from now on: We are not at war with Islam, but at war with radicals doing evil in the name of Islam."

Pascal Bruckner in his polemic "Enlightenment: Fundamentalism or Racism of the Anti-racists", a peculiar title if you don't know that multiculturalists see all that isn't relativist as fundamentalism, acknowledges that "secularism was written into the Gospels". Indeed: "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s", Jesus Christ is quoted as saying. This has given rise in the very early Middle Ages to the Division of Church (Pope) and State (Emperor). It is a very interesting subject about which misunderstandings and confusion galore! I'd be grateful for any contributions of people in the know. At some point I propose to do a series of posts on the subject in an effort to establish some clarity.

In fact secularism can only have flourished in the Christian culture. In a recent Dutch study about the contemporary state of belief the conclusion is made that "... only a culture (the Christian) that makes such a division in domains (religion and state) ... can construct a word for such a notion (religion) [1]." In other words, other cultures do not know such a division, and secularism couldn't have come to fruition in any other culture.

Those who value the secular, the cherished neutral state: laïcité, Radical Enlightenment, a culture of life, had better come to value and defend Christianity. And this is why - in spite of it sounding perhaps crude or impolite to non-Christians, and multicultis whose only belief is their own fallacy - Frank Pastore is spot on when he states that: "our Founders believed it best to be a Christian people with a secular form of government" and that Christian morality needs to set the norm as the sole guarantor of peace and space for all.

The second piece of insight is an article that has come my way by means of an unlikely place, a digital 'cowboy' in the American Midwest operating a blog called 'Barking Moonbat Early Warning System', a political and literary gem! In a post "Islam Divided" he's relaying us an article "Sunni vs. Shi'a: It's not all Islam" by Ralph Peters, a former CIA intelligence analyst, from which I'll give you one paragraph as a night cap:

"We’re a fringe player in multiple zero-sum struggles: Persian Zoroastrianism in Muslim garb vs. Bedouin fascism; multiple insurgencies within the Sunni global campaign to re-establish the Caliphate; an interfaith competition to jump-start an apocalypse; an old ethnic struggle between Persians and Arabs; and a distinctly Zoroastrian struggle between good and evil (alert the White House)."

Post-modernism's fallacies (I)

Greg Koukl has identified seven further problems with relativism of a more philosophical, rather than practical nature. But before we go into those I'd like to go through my own preliminary list, which currently counts nine points, directly related problems on a day-to-day level, plus a number of other misconcepts that are typical of post-modernity. Some we already know, others we haven't yet discussed in this blog. It is a random list, with no particular order of importance. Some are however of utmost relevance, as we shall see as we get more insight into the problem.

The definition are subjectivism according to Wikipedia reads: "A philosophical tenet that accords primacy to subjective experiences as fundament of all measure and law. In an extreme form, it may hold that the nature and existence of every object depends only on some one's subjective awareness of it". About the latter Anthony Rizzi in the book Science before Science writes a quote attributed to Albert Einstein: "Do you really believe the world isn't there if you're not looking at it?": the result of the fundamental mistake of Idealism.

1. The world is not a pie.
The world isn't made in such a way, that if my part is bigger, somebody else's portion is necessarily smaller. It isn't a zero-sum game as in labour negotiations. In the Harvard method of conflict management we learn that when mitigating a dispute between two parties, we don't go for a watered down compromise, but instead we try to forge a new situation out of the dispute. If one party has oranges and claims the right to the other's lemons, we suggest they consider building a fruit juice factory together, not both ending up with half of what they already had, plus only half of the desired object.
The fallacy seems to be based on an erroneous analogy with natural resources, which evidently are limited. But most things are not limited, replenish themselves or are simply not subject to this particular law of physics, especially in economics and in the world of ideas.

2. Down-talking is degrading.
If I talk myself (my country, my traditions, my culture, etc.) down with the object of making the other party feel better, I can spare myself the degradation. It doesn't work that way. On the contrary, the other party thinks: "Well, if your culture is so poor, how can you possibly make a sound judgement about mine". On the other hand, if I am proud of mine, the other party can feel free to say: "If you're proud, look at mine!".

3. It is possible to support two views simultaneously.
On the same note and perhaps a result of the two-party system or the bi-polar world view of the Cold War: if I choose for health care, this doesn't mean automatically that I am against education. I can support both. More controversial: if I am against George Bush, I can still be for democracy. It may seem stating the obvious, but this is how the anti-war movement ended up as apologists for terrorists and advocates for Saddam Hussein (a tyrant during whose tenure the rate of deaths per 24 hours stood at 240, still exceeding current shocking levels).

4. Goodness is unlimited.
Another version of yet the same misunderstanding: if I am good, it doesn't follow the other party is bad: we can both be good. If I value Western culture, this doesn't necessarily mean I think nothing of the East. It is entirely possible to appreciate and see the merits of both. And if irreconcilable, we can always decide to tolerate each other (in the classical sense of the word: see point 8.)

5. Truth by survey does not exist.
Nowadays it is considered the done thing to probe public opinion on a number of issues. These surveys and polls however are for the most part simply a pastime, filling web space and current affair programs of the B category. Silly questions galore: sometimes they are relevant to a particular political issue and are a measure of public opinion ("Is the surge a good thing?"), at other times they are plain silly and call for an opinion over a fact ("Is AIDS a growing problem?"), or worse even - on moral or religious matters ("Does God exist?").

A lack of knowledge may be at the root of putting a matter to the vote that isn't for the people at large to decide at all ("Should the Pope abdicate?"). "Yes", and so what ....?

Does a return of 50,1% make an error right or true? Public opinion is notoriously fickle and if the majority of people make a mistake, which isn't unheard of, should their wish be taken seriously? Remember that Hitler came to power as a result of a perfectly legitimate election, as did the current Hamas government.

These endless surveys and polls, whether appropriate or not, are causing misconcepts and fallacies. Moreover they make people less aware and increasingly insensitive towards minorities, who as a consequence, are faced with a dictatorship by the majority. I seriously think irresponsible and unscientific polling should be boycotted. If you agree, start by nominating ludicrous polls and surveys for the Competition for the Most Outrageous Survey Award.

To be continued.