New Study: "Fundamentalist" More Likely to Engage In/Approve Of Domestic Violence

by Justitia Themis 10 Replies latest social current

  • Justitia Themis
    Justitia Themis

    Actual Study PDF:

    News report:

    A recent study of Christian college students indicates that the more Fundamentalist their beliefs, the more likely they are to engage in or approve of domestic abuse and violence.

    Texas Tech professors and Jerome Koch Ignacio Luis Ramirez conducted a study of 626 undergraduate students. The survey measured general religiosity (belief in God, strength of faith, etc.) using questions from the General Social Survey and “fundamentalism” based on a six-item scale previously used in research published in the Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion.

    The researchers found that “general religiosity” was not associated with psychologically or physically abusive behavior, nor with approval of domestic violence. However, “fundamentalism” was positively correlated with both physically abusive behavior and approval of domestic violence. The more fundamentalist the belief system, the more likely the believer was to support or engage in physically abusive and violent domestic behavior

  • brotherdan

    This really isn't anything new. This has been an argument of evolutionists for years. I agree that some abusive personality types could be attracted to fundamentalism because of it's tendency to be dogmatic in it's views.

  • JWoods

    Muslim fundamentalism too?

  • Justitia Themis
    Justitia Themis

    Yes. Glad to see that you are starting to recognize that religious deviancy knows no cultural/religious barrier JW. However, I suspect you would not condemn ALL of Christianity for the way Fundamentalists treat women in the same manner as you condemn ALL of Islam for the way Islamic fundamentalists treat women.

    That's really the main difference between us. :)

    Though it is sad that you are so consumed by your prejudice that on virtually every topic I post you are compelled to raise Islam.

  • JWoods

    Actually, I have no religion Justicia Themis. I also have no preference for fundamentalism over catholicism. No preference for christianity over Islam.

    I do denounce people who do immoral things in the name of religion - and right now that is notoriously very common in radical Islam.

    I have noticed that every time Islamic wrongdoing gets mentioned in a thread, you are one of the first to try to turn criticism back to christianity.

    That is why I have come to view you as a sort of apologist for radical Islam.

  • beksbks

    Woods and others-"Muslims are horrible, hideous, evil, nasty, murderous, etc. etc. etc.!"

    Justitia, myself and others-"You mean Muslim extremists right? You can hardly paint all Muslims with the same brush anymore than you can paint all Christians with the same brush. Are Jehovah's Witnesses the same as Episcopalians?"

    Woods and others-"Muslim Apologists! Far Left Muslim lovers! Jew haters!"

    Woods and others after posting another heinous action by Muslim extremists-"Yea, I knew those Muslim lovin' apologists wouldn't come here and condemn these heinous actions"

    Myself-"What comment is to be made about another example of stripes on a zebra? Zebra's have stripes what more need be said?"

  • steve2

    Human nature ranges widely from absolute unconditional love and compassion through to deliberate antisocial actions towards others. You don't have to be religious to do this.

    However, it is frighteningly clear that people who believe they are serving "God" appear more prepared to engage in extreme behaviours "in the name of [their] God".

    And yet before we zero in on Christian, Jewish and Islamic fundamentalists, let's not forget that the one book they share in common - the so-called Old Testament - is a veritable bloodbath of Jehovian-ordered genocide (i.e, slaughtering entire people's in response to the "one true God's" orders).

    The capacity of religion to "inspire" bloodshed is as impressive as its capacity to inspire acts of compassion and charity. I agree wholeheartedly with Richard Dawkins view that religion sanctifies and jsutifies violence in the name of "God".

  • Justitia Themis
    Justitia Themis

    JW, I took your response very seriously. If my posts have been indicating that I support RADICAL Islam, I need to change that, because I do not. As a result, I decided to review my posts, and I have copied and pasted the more recent ones. I see no evidence of any posts that would lead one to conclude that I support radical Islam. In fact, most of my posts are regarding the various different sects of Islam with resulting variances in Quranic interpretations.

    I suspect that, again, your response is colored by your own religous bigotry. It's not that I have supported RADICAL Islam, it is that I have supported any form of Islam at all. Therefore, you cannot see the moderation in my posts.

    Under sharia law, a woman who cheats on her husband can be stoned to death and a girl as young as nine can me given in marriage.

    Correction: Under SOME INTERPRETATIONS of Sharia law,.....

    They tell me that it is not considered unusual for a father to beat his daughter and threaten to kill her. It's just accepted as a way of life

    Correction: In SOME AREAS, it is not considered unusual for a father...

    Since Sharia is based upon Quranic interpretations, there is no singular Sharia law.

    Which requires more "interpretation"? (1) Reading the actual text of the Koran and obeying it, or (2) reading the actual text of the Koran and ignoring the commands?

    I don't understand your post. However, tafsir is often approached from a socio-historical context, and it is influenced greatly by whether a specific verse is from the Medina or Mecca periods. Hijabi is an excellent example of the diversity of interpretation with some promoting stringent rules and others using verses to promote that a woman has the "right" to look beautiful. So again, which sharia?

    If we open the Old Testament of the Bible, it tells us to murder our children, if they are disobedient. So, most Christians read this, then interpret this (however they do it) and decide that these instructions do not apply to them, and they ignore this command.

    With the Koran, it instructs the Muslim to slaughter the Infidel. So, most Muslims then interpret this (however they do it) and decide that it does not apply to them, and they ignore this command.

    When Osama bin Laden kills Infidels, it's not because he interpreted anything, it's because he read the Koran and it told him to do so. It's there in black and white. No interpretation is needed. (It would be exactly the same scenario if a Bible-believing person stoned their child.)

    I understand your post better now. Thank you :) However, there is some correction. Muslims do not see any portion of the Quran as not applying to them; they might, however, see it as applying to a different time (Mecca/Medina). In like manner, a Christian may dismiss literal sacrifices as applying to a different time period.

    As for bin Laden, you are absolutely correct about the black/white dichotomy. Interestingly, Wahabism originated in a very black/white location. The land had few colors, even the predominate musical instrument had only one string. Their black/white Quranic interpretation motivated this sect to destroy the Graves of the Companions and murder many muslims; the Ottomon caliphate had to intervene to stop the slaughter. Like JWs, they just put them in the apostate column (for worshipping under the trees), which then made it an honorable action to kill them. did Persia become so fundamentalist...followed by historical information on Persia (Iran).

    AGAIN I ask! Have you read the Quran?

    I think it wonderful that some are trying to understand Islam. Unfortunately, regardless of the good intent, many of the posts simply highlight the ignorance of the poster. Applying Christian study techniques, such are 'reading the Quran,' will not help you. My Muslim friends laugh when Christians speak of 'reading' the Quran.

    First, you must be able to determine which period it was written in...Medina? Mecca? Second, you must understand and differentiate between the chains of Hadith transmitters. Also, there is no one official Sharia, just as there is no one Christianity. Hadith is open to interpretation. Unlike Christianity, Islam encourages ijtihad, thorugh which one can become a Mujtahid.

    If anyone is truly interested in learning the varieties of interpretations, buy some books on Hadith and Islamic jurisprudence.


    Under Sharia law specifically, Women do not have that right. See the link I posted above.



    Coffeeblack is incorrect.

    Accepted grounds for divorce differ based upon each school. Hanafi schools grant women almost no divorce rights; Maliki interpretations are the most liberal and include such grounds as non-support, abandonment, and "injury" (darar) which is expansive and includes injuries besides physical.

    Also, in conditional or delegated divorce, specific circumstances are written in the marriage contract that trigger an automatic divorce, such as asking the wife to move to another city. Marriage amongst Muslims is a contract, and the contract varies for each couple.

    Sam Harris in his book "The End of Faith" mentioned that one thing Christians have over Muslims is that they already worked out (generally speaking) their angst. I will say for the most part, that Christians do not take all of the bible literally, and that includes all of the stoning to death of people who break laws of sexuality or of talking back to your parents. Islam does not do this. They take their shit waaay too seriously.

    Bingo. BTW, I have Harris' book and read it multiple times. BUT, keep in mind, he has his own anti-Muslim colorings and he groups them into one, monolith group.

    I just reviewed some UN documents on Afghanistan and its literacy rate. 28%!! And keep in mind, the UN defines literate as approximately a 5th grade education. As most of us on this DB understand, education is the ticket to religious (and other) freedoms. Most of us still believe the Bible, but our interpretations have vastly changed from the fundamentalist opinions we held as JWs.

    How sad that we deny others that same learning curve that we so cherish. Perhaps we should have been killed for our

    One word: WAHABI!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Indeed, sometimes referred to as petro-Islam. It was sponsored by western oil consumption

    Hamilcarr! That is very astute! I like you! Yes, the West (insert United States and Britain) promoted this group to gain ascendancy in Saudi so that they could obtain the oil! THAT is how the rose to power, and now, even the Prince fears them. You cannot claim to understand Islam unless you understand oil.

    Controlling the Wahabi's was the last great act of the Ottomon Caliphate. Unfortunately, Britain (oil) destroyed the moderate Caliphate. What a different world we would have if the West had not intervened in the natural progress of Islam. Imagine a Middle East as moderate as Turkey. :) We destroyed all that, and in true Pandora fashion, unleashed and impowered the fundamentalists.

  • believingxjw

    There are many women in abuse shelters whose husbands never to go church. Abuse is found among all peoples both religious and non-religious.

  • steve2
    There are many women in abuse shelters whose husbands never to go church. Abuse is found among all peoples both religious and non-religious.

    Of course that's correct. Even so, violence assoicated with religious beliefs tends to be more truculent and "justifed" than other types of violence. A determined self-righteosness drives religious violence - a determination that is rarely seen with nonreligious violence. Religiously violent offenders can "beautifully" justify their actions in terms of carrying out "God's will". Look at the savage justifications of genocide found in the Hebrew Scriptures.

Share this