Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
posted by on Thursday April 20 2017, @01:08PM   Printer-friendly
from the natural-enemies dept.

Government restrictions on religion and social hostilities involving religion increased in 2015 for the first time in three years, according to Pew Research Center's latest annual study on global restrictions on religion.

The share of countries with "high" or "very high" levels of government restrictions – i.e., laws, policies and actions that restrict religious beliefs and practices – ticked up from 24% in 2014 to 25% in 2015. Meanwhile, the percentage of countries with high or very high levels of social hostilities – i.e., acts of religious hostility by private individuals, organizations or groups in society – increased in 2015, from 23% to 27%. Both of these increases follow two years of declines in the percentage of countries with high levels of restrictions on religion by these measures.

Among the world's 25 most populous countries, Russia, Egypt, India, Pakistan and Nigeria had the highest overall levels of government restrictions and social hostilities involving religion. Egypt had the highest levels of government restrictions in 2015, while Nigeria had the highest levels of social hostilities.

Global Restrictions on Religion Rise Modestly

Does this reflect your personal experience ?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 20 2017, @09:16PM (4 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 20 2017, @09:16PM (#497063)

    I worry WAY more about white supremacists than I do about brown terrorists. On this site alone I have seen veiled death threats and gloating such as "we have more guns than your side". There is also a ton of evidence that 9/11 was allowed to happen, but sure stick your head in the sand and blame Muslims for all our problems. I'll worry more about the very real domestic terrorism we've got going on.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday April 21 2017, @06:57AM (3 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday April 21 2017, @06:57AM (#497277) Journal
    I can see the argument that we shouldn't be worrying all that much about terrorism in the first place. But to ignore that Islamic terrorism has killed almost a couple orders of magnitude more people in the US (and has a vastly higher kill count in the Middle East) and then tell me that I should instead be really worried about a faction that has supposedly killed 48 people over 13-14 years. I think there's a problem here.

    On this site alone I have seen veiled death threats and gloating such as "we have more guns than your side".

    So? What's the context of these alleged threats? What are they responding to? A key problem here is that you being an AC means you're not even a little bit credible here.

    Finally, I just don't agree that you have tons of evidence about 9/11 being "allowed".

    • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday April 21 2017, @11:52PM (2 children)

      by aristarchus (2645) on Friday April 21 2017, @11:52PM (#497674) Journal

      A key problem here is that you being an AC means you're not even a little bit credible here.

      khallow said this, yes, he did. khallow is not a real person, he just plays one on SN, and he stayed at a Holiday Inn. His not being an AC means he's even less credible than an AC. Irony meter has just gone to plaid. Must be the silvery slope.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday April 22 2017, @01:10AM (1 child)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday April 22 2017, @01:10AM (#497712) Journal
        Here's what I observe.

        I see a reply which gives the impression that you think my post was flawed or incorrect in some way, but fails to coherently describe the flaw.

        There are a few things where having a SN nym lends credibility that an AC can't have. The nym doesn't magically make someone trustworthy, but it does allow me to show how long I've been here and that certain articles were posted by me.

        Let's look at the quote in question:

        On this site alone I have seen veiled death threats and gloating such as "we have more guns than your side".

        If you, aristarchus had posted this, then we would at least know that you have been on here for several years (through cursory examination of your posting history) and thus, have the opportunity to see veiled death threats and such. But this might be the first post for Mr. AC, who hasn't read a bit of SN aside from the current story and is just talking trash. We just don't know.

        The AC in question can of course, rectify this issue by linking to examples of the above. It really doesn't matter if he's honest or not, but how prevalent and of what sort of character this alleged speech is. The claim of seeing is just the claim of existence. But if it's an occasional bout of obvious, sarcastic joking by insincere trolls, that greatly weakens the case for caring about this evidence.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by aristarchus on Saturday April 22 2017, @03:23AM

          by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday April 22 2017, @03:23AM (#497773) Journal

          Wow! A rational, reasoned response, when I was expecting The Forcible Imposition!