Chart of the Day: World’s Religion

From the Economist

RELIABLE data on the age and whereabouts of the religious and irreligious are hard to come by, which makes a new report on the topic from the Pew Research Centre welcome. Among its many findings is that Jews and Buddhists make the biggest religious minorities, in the sense of living in a country where another religion is dominant. Asia has by far the largest number of people who claim not to believe in any religion, something that is explained by China's official godlessness. Despite this, though, China has the world's seventh-largest Christian population, estimated at 68m. The report also contains data on people who call themselves religious but do not adhere to any of the Abrahamic religions, Hinduism or Buddhism. Here again Asia is dominant, largely thanks to the popularity of Shintoism in Japan.

Some observations

-Considering that many have used “religion” as an excuse in justifying imperial wars, note that the second largest religion or the Muslim share of the global population is 23.2% or about 1.61 billion out of the nearly 7 billion people.

In other words, while extremism exists—as they apply to every religion not limited to Muslims—they are a fragment of the total. Thus, war grounded on religion signifies as a fallacy of composition.

I might as well add that religious conflicts can also be triggered by political intolerance vented through various forms of political interventionism. Obviously the way to peacefully coexist is through the opposite tolerance and adapting freedom in religion

As the great Ludwig von Mises pointed out

Domestic political and religious persecutions had ceased, and international wars began to become less frequent.

-The share of agnostics, atheists or those with no religion ranks third or has grown in size to edge out Hinduism. As the article pointed out, much of the unattached are in Asia.

Foreign Meddling, Not ‘War in the name of Islam’, Breeds Terror Redux

Back in May of 2011,  I pointed out of the ‘fallacy of composition’ used against Muslims, whom has been associated with 'terrorism', as justifications to advance imperialist-military agenda known as the “war on terror”.

In other words, the so-called religious war only serves as camouflage to advance US imperialist interests.

In the name of War on Terror, more innocent people are being slaughtered every year than the combined activities of the Al Qaeda.

 At the Lew Rockwell Blog, retired Professor Michael S. Rozeff has an expanded view on this. (bold mine)

I read that 23 percent of the world's population is Muslim, or 1.6 billion people. Whatever the number is, it's large. How many are terrorists out to terrorize westerners and push them out of areas they consider to be Muslim areas? How many are terrorists who attack other Muslims? How many are terrorists who attack people of other religions? One source says that Muslim attacks worldwide and against all targets, failed and successful, add up to 18,000 since 2001. This number is bound to be controversial and subject to error. If this involved 18,000 Muslims, that's a little over one-thousandth of one percent of Muslims who engaged in a terrorist or violent attempted attack or attack anywhere in the world.

How many Muslims have American forces killed since 2001? I've found a low-end estimate for 1990 to 2009, and it's 288,000. How many of these were Muslim terrorists? I can't find a tally so far. The number is very, very small relative to 288,000. The tally for drone strikes is 2-3,000 with a high proportion being innocent people. Drone strikes produce more terrorists than they kill, according to a former CIA official. 

What's my point? Same as always. The entire war on terror, or whatever name it now carries, should be stopped, abandoned, shut down, ended. By and large, it has done nothing but kill hundreds of thousands of innocent Muslims. Drones are relatively less destructive than ouright armed force attacks as in Iraq, but they too are killing innocents and alienating whole populations. Plus Obama has extended their use into all kinds of countries, thereby entangling the U.S. in future difficulties. Plus they are being run by the unaccountable and rogue CIA. 

Terrorism should be handled in a very different way. It should be handled more or less as something akin to crime but a few notches above that when it involves groups. Such groups are more like a Mafia, if they combine, or otherwise like street gangs, but gangs that have turned to intentional mayhem and destruction. Fighting terrorism does take some inter-state cooperation of domestic agencies tasked with identifying and apprehending terrorists.

Bottom line: Foreign meddling, and not religious conflict, has been the root cause of terrorism

US Drone Warfare Fuels Arabic and Islamic Hatred

One of the main reasons why there has been too much vile and hatred against Americans in the Muslim world has been because of the imperialist-interventionist-militant foreign policies adapted by the US government influenced by the military industrial complex and the imperial goals of the politically entrenched neoconservatives.

One such evidence is the rampant use by the US military of drones to supposedly weed out terrorists. Such actions in reality defies the 3D policies (Development, Diplomacy and Defense), framed by Secretary of State and former first lady Hilary Clinton

As Professor Bill Easterly of the NYU in a recent blog writes,

Hilary Clinton said a while ago that Defense and Development were complements.

Not so much. A new report from Stanford and NYU (see excellent summary in the Guardian) found that US drone strikes (greatly increased under this administration) in Pakistan were killing and terrorizing civilians, while very few killed their terrorist targets.

It would be hard for Development to benefit from “drones hovering 24 hours a day over communities in northwest Pakistan, striking homes, vehicles, and public spaces without warning.”

The report alleges that drones strike areas multiple times, killing rescuers of victims of the first strike.

Such gruesome violation of human rights which masquerades as the war on terror will exacerbate geopolitical tensions instead of solving them

Yet the best way to promote peace is through trade.

As Judge Andrew Napolitano recently pointed out,

Is it not more likely that when the West supported toppling Arab strongmen, the rioters in the streets saw that as a signal to express hatred toward the meddling West? Might Obama’s drones, which have fallen all over the Middle East killing innocents in schools and hospitals, at weddings and funerals, and demolishing mosques and homes, be coming back to haunt him?

The Arab Spring has become the Western Winter, brought about by two American presidents who thought they could kill without moral justification or painful consequence. We should come home from these barbaric places and leave them alone. We should trade with them, since they want to buy our iPads and washing machines and blue jeans, but let them run their own governments.

Yet another emerging problem has been the escalating anxiety over the overbearing use of drones against Americans in their homeland—another sign of America’s transition towards a police state. These are symptoms of the growing desperation of the ruling class.

Quote of the Day: The Roots of Arab and Islamic Hatred

What are the roots of that Arab and Islamic hatred?

Osama bin Laden in his declaration of war against us gave three reasons as his casus belli.

His first reason for war was the presence of U.S. troops on the soil of Saudi Arabia, sacred home to Mecca and Medina. His second was the U.S. sanctions on Iraq then said to be causing the premature deaths of as many as 500,000 Iraqi children.

Third was U.S. support for Israel, seen in the Arab world as a colonial implant to humiliate them and deny to the Palestinian people their right to a nation of their own.

Lately, new causes of Arab and Muslim hatred of us have arisen.

The first is what devout Muslims regard as our immoral and decadent culture, which they see as a threat to their societies and their young.

The second are the Islam haters and baiters in America and the West who deliberately provoke them with insulting and blasphemous portrayals of the Prophet and their faith.

While the U.S. bases in Saudi Arabia have by now largely been closed, and the United States is largely withdrawn from Iraq and the sanctions there have all been lifted, America is not going to change herself to accommodate their world.

Support of Israel is the declared position of both parties. And, though Secretary of State Hillary Clinton rightly called the crude amateur film "Innocence of Muslims," which caused the latest anti-American rioting, both disgusting and reprehensible, we are not going to repeal the First Amendment, which protects provocateurs and pornographers.

Yet, worldwide, there are hundreds of millions of Muslims for whom their faith is their most priceless possession. They live it. They will die for it. And not a few will kill for it. Others will seize upon real or imagined insults to that faith to excite the crowds to expel us from their world.

And some Americans will accommodate them by using books, films and videos to manifest their contempt of Islam.

So we have here an irreconcilable conflict.

The Islamic word, especially across the Arab region, is undergoing a transformation, a Great Awakening. Muslims from Nigeria to Mali to Ethiopia to Sudan to the Maghreb and Middle and Near East are growing more militant and more hostile toward Christianity and other faiths.

This is from Patrick J. Buchanan, co-founder and editor of The American Conservative writing at the Lew Rockwell.com

Quote of the Day: People's Access to State Power Results in Persecution

Basically, I contend that contrary to "religion" being responsible for the Crusades, the Inquisition, the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre, the treason against the Waldensians, the purges in England, and the oppression in Geneva, to name but a few, it was the fact that these religious positions held a controlling interest in the State that resulted in the terror exacted upon innocents. For instance, Lutheran segregation in post-Luther Germany was a result of the marriage of church and State in that country, the oppression in England of differing religious positions was because of the involvement of the State in religion, Calvin's oppression was because his religion WAS the State, and, most egregiously, the Vatican itself IS a State, to which over a billion souls worldwide pledge (unwittingly, in most cases) their allegiance, even before their own home countries.

Thus, while religionists have played a significant role in the history of the world, it's always those people's access to State power that results in persecution. For instance, you'll never hear of Baptists, Quakers, or Amish oppressing other religions, as these groups (I am a Baptist) have never sought to control the political reins of any region or State. In fact, Rhode Island's charter was premised on the Baptistic doctrine of Soul Liberty, a Biblical principle that I would suggest is the foundation for the concepts of Liberty as taught by John Locke and his intellectual descendants.

(bold emphasis added)

This is from a comment by Vince LaRue at the lewrockwell blog, in reply to Professor Walter Block’s article on Religion and Libertarianism.

Foreign Meddling, Not ‘War in the name of Islam’, Breeds Terror

The Economist produces a table showing the fatalities from Al Qaeda’s “Killing in the name of Islam”

Apparently this has been published to justify the US government’s action on Osama Bin Laden—a reductio ad absurdum fallacy.

It’s foolish to say that these have all been about religion.

Common sense tells us that with an estimated 1.5 billion Islam adherents and growing, then a war on religion would imply that the world would have been embroiled in various types of violence as a result from this ‘false’ war. But where? The war has been limited to but a few.

For instance, Bin Laden’s alleged war with the west has been anchored upon the following key factors, which the legendary investor Doug Casey enumerates:

One thing they should think about is that Osama didn’t actually present – or certainly shouldn’t have presented – a risk to the U.S. You’ll recall that he said he was only up in arms for three reasons: 1) the U.S. had its troops in Muslim lands; 2) the U.S. was supporting the stooges running those countries; and 3) the U.S. was supporting Israel, which he deemed an oppressor of the Palestinians. If the U.S. desisted from those things, he was happy to leave it alone, in the belief it would necessarily self-destruct.

In other words, the so-called religious war only serves as camouflage to advance US imperialist interests.

In the name of War on Terror, more innocent people are being slaughtered every year than the combined activities of the Al Qaeda.

Writes the New York Times,

Last year was the deadliest of more than nine years of war for Afghan civilians, the United Nations reported Wednesday, attributing 75 percent of the deaths to attacks by Taliban and other insurgents rather than coalition forces.

The United Nations said 2,777 civilians were killed in 2010 — a 15 percent increase over the previous year — in its annual civilian casualty report, authored jointly with the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission.

Despite several prominent recent episodes involving civilian deaths that have strained relations with the Afghan government, deaths caused by NATO forces declined by 26 percent, the report found, reflecting new precautionary steps by military commanders, including Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the previous top commander in Afghanistan, and Gen. David H. Petraeus, who took over eight months ago.

That’s from Afghanistan alone in 2010.

While most of these are being blamed on Al Qaeda, based on statistics which we can’t rely on, because only nation states have the power to make such declaration. The point is the War on Terror has been causing more needless deaths regardless of who is responsible.

Here is an estimate of the total casualties over the duration of the War on Terror from Wikipedia,

-Iraq: 62,570 to 1,124,000

-Afghanistan: between 10,960 and 49,600

-Pakistan: between 1467 and 2334 killed in U.S. drone attacks as of May 6, 2011

All these goes to show that imperialism, not a war on religion, is what breeds terror. As Sheldon Richman fittingly writes, (bold highlights mine)

Apologists for activist government never tire of telling us that the benevolent state is our protector and that without it we'd be at the mercy of monsters. It is about time that we understood that the U.S. government does more to endanger the American people than any imagined monsters around the world.

How so? By pursuing its Grand Foreign Policy of meddling anywhere and everywhere. It stands to reason that if you stick your nose in other people's quarrels you will acquire enemies. Some of them will be unhappy about the interference and will retaliate. Tragically, they will not be so careful about discriminating between the offenders and innocent civilians. That's wrong, but so is the meddling that brings the retaliation about.

Unfortunately, far more influential are vested interest groups who profits from these wars, whom dictate on foreign policies channeled through political leaders.

All the rest is propaganda.

Saudi Arabia Led GCC Intervention In Bahrain

As everyone seems fixated on Japan, which seems to have eclipsed most of the world’s problems, here is one important development: Arab dictators appear to have closed ranks.

The Bloomberg reports, (bold emphasis mine)

Saudi Arabian troops moved into Bahrain as part of a regional force from the Gulf Cooperation Council, the first cross-border intervention since a wave of popular uprisings swept through parts of the Arab world.

“This is war against the unarmed Bahraini people,” said Matar Ebrahim Ali Matar, a member of al-Wefaq, the largest Shiite opposition party.

Mainly Shiite protesters in Bahrain have been demonstrating since Feb. 14, demanding democracy through free elections from their Sunni monarch. Shiites comprise as much as 70 percent of the population. King Hamad bin Isa Al Khalifa has offered a national “dialogue” toward changes in response, which hasn’t quieted protesters. Clashes escalated on Sunday with more than 100 people injured.

The deployment signals that the Bahraini regime has lost confidence it can deal with the protests and underscores Saudi Arabian concerns about uprisings at home, according to Christopher Davidson, a scholar in Middle East politics at Durham University and author of “Power and Politics in the Gulf Monarchies,”

“It is in Saudi’s interest that nothing serious happens in Bahrain, because it would embolden similar protests in its eastern provinces,” Davidson said in a telephone interview late yesterday.

Why is this important?

We get some clues from the same Bloomberg article,

The protests in the tiny kingdom have fueled fears of a regional Shiite uprising supported by mainly Shiite Iran. Many Shiite Bahrainis retain cultural and family ties with Iran and with Shiites in eastern Saudi Arabia; Bahrain’s Sunni ruling family has close links with Saudi Arabia, which holds 20 percent of the world’s oil reserves.

The U.S. is urging Bahrain, home to the U.S. Navy’s Fifth Fleet, to allow nonviolent protests and encouraging Gulf nations to use restraint, White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters at the White House.

If the revolutions were merely local then we would be dealing with residual common factor risks, or event risk that is limited to a specific nation.

However, when domestic events includes international political interventions, then the risk factor transforms into systematic or market risk.

This is more a problem, for me, than that of Japan’s risk of a full blown nuclear meltdown (which on my assumption would eventually be resolved as others before it).

The key difference between the event risks of Japan and Bahrain is one of technical (Japan’s nuclear power woes) relative to social (religion based geopolitics).

The GCC intervention into Bahrain could well play into rival Islam Shiite-Sunni sect belligerency, particularly Saudi versus Iran, and possibly dragging more participants. At worst, there could be a regional conflagration.

This is a very important variable that needs to be monitored because further deterioration can extrapolate to a shift in the tide of the underlying market trends.