Anti-Semitic Incidents, 2011

Posted on February 4, 2012 by Clive D. Field

For the first time ever since reporting began, there were more anti-Semitic incidents in Greater Manchester than in Greater London in 2011, even though the Jewish population of the capital is seven times the size of Manchester’s.

This is one of the findings which has been grabbing the media headlines from the Community Security Trust (CST)’s Antisemitic Incidents Report, 2011, published on 2 February 2012 and available at:

http://www.thecst.org.uk/docs/Incidents%20Report%202011.pdf

CST, which has been recording anti-Semitic incidents in the UK since 1984, logged 586 of them in 2011, 9% fewer than in 2010 and 37% less than in 2009, when there was a spike in anti-Semitism as a result of Israel’s military operations in Gaza. The fall is attributed by CST to the absence of similar ‘trigger events’ in 2011.

The figures exclude potential incidents reported to and investigated by CST but not ultimately classified by it as anti-Semitic (in terms of motivation, targeting or content), although some were anti-Israel. There were 437 of these in 2011, bringing the total of reported incidents to 1,023.

201 of the 586 anti-Semitic incidents (34%) took place in Greater London, a decrease of 9% from 2010, and 244 (42%) in Greater Manchester, 13% more than the year before. There were 141 incidents (24%) in the rest of the UK.

According to CST, the Manchester peak was ‘mainly the result of improved reporting of incidents by Manchester’s Jewish community to CST and to Greater Manchester Police, and a close working relationship between CST and GMP’.

Incidents were categorized by type as follows: extreme violence (one incident), assault (16%), damage and desecration to Jewish property (11%), threats (5%), abusive behaviour (67%), and mass-produced literature (1%).

Victims of incidents were: high-profile public figures (3%), random Jewish individuals in public (37%), people in private homes (12%), schools and schoolchildren (12%), synagogues and congregants (18%), students and academics (6%), Jewish organizations and communal events (11%), and Jewish cemeteries (1%).

Where information was available, 85% of perpetrators were found to be male and 5% mixed gender groups. 61% were white and 39% black, Asian or Arab. 63% were described as adults and 36% as minors (but the latter accounted for two-thirds of anti-Semitic assaults).

 

Posted in News from religious organisations | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Scottish Social Attitudes Discrimination Module

Posted on September 12, 2011 by Clive D. Field

The level of religious prejudice in Scotland in 2010 was much the same as in 2006, notwithstanding significant legislative and other activities to counter it by both the UK and Scottish Governments during the intervening years.

Moreover, Scottish attitudes to Muslims continued to be more negative than to other religious groups, despite a 7% rise in those having Muslim acquaintances over the four-year period.

These are among the headline findings from the report on the discrimination module in the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey, which was published by Scottish Government Social Research on 11 August 2011.

Written by Rachel Ormston, John Curtice, Susan McConville and Susan Reid of the Scottish Centre for Social Research (ScotCen), Scottish Social Attitudes Survey, 2010: Attitudes to Discrimination and Positive Action can be downloaded from:

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/355716/0120166.pdf

The module was funded by the Scottish Government and the Equality and Human Rights Commission (Scotland). Fieldwork was undertaken by ScotCen by means of face-to-face interview and self-completion questionnaire between June and October 2010. Interviews were achieved with a representative sample of 1,495 Scottish adults aged 18 and over, a response rate of 54%.

Answers to questions of particular interest to BRIN (mainly affecting Muslims, since Protestant/Catholic sectarianism was not covered in the module) appear below, but readers should note that no attempt has been made to summarize the important multivariate regression analyses which appear in Annex B of the report.

49% of Scots agreed that Scotland would begin to lose its identity if more Muslims came to settle there (compared with 46% who said the same about Eastern Europeans and 45% about blacks and Asians). The proportion was similar to the 50% recorded in 2006 but well up on 38% in 2003. It was highest among the over-65s (67%), those with no educational qualifications (62%), and residents of the most deprived areas (62%).

46% of Scots did not know anybody who was a Muslim (slightly reduced from 52% in 2006), with 9% unsure and 45% reporting some acquaintance, overwhelmingly in a non-familial context. Those acquainted with a Muslim were less likely to say there is sometimes good reason to be prejudiced than those with no Muslim contacts (23% versus 35%).

23% of respondents indicated that they would be unhappy about a family member marrying or forming a long-term relationship with a Muslim (rising to 45% among the over-65s and 39% with no educational qualifications), compared with 18% for a Hindu, 9% for a Jew, and just 2% (of non-Christians) for a Christian. The equivalent figures for a Muslim in 2003 and 2006 were 20% and 24% respectively. The extent of unhappiness varied inversely with income, falling from 31% for those who brought in less than £14,300 per annum to 14% for those earning over £44,200. Religion also made a difference, the proportion being 28% for those with a religious affiliation and 17% for those without.

15% of Scots claimed that a Muslim would make an unsuitable primary school teacher, the same figure as in 2006. The proportion climbed with age, from 6% among the 18-24s to 28% with the over-65s. It stood at 27% among Scots with no educational qualifications but at only 8% for the most highly qualified; at 23% for those on the lowest incomes and 9% on the highest; and at 23% for those who did not know any Muslims and 8% for those with Muslim acquaintances. 55% said a Muslim would be suitable, with 24% neutral.

69% of all respondents (and 83% of over-55s) felt that a bank should be able to insist that a female Muslim employee remove a veil, but only 23% said the same about a female Muslim employee wearing a headscarf. 24% considered a bank should be able to require a Sikh male employee to remove his turban and 15% a Christian woman employee to remove a crucifix.

32% of Scots felt that it would be a bad or very bad use of Government money for funds to be channeled to organizations which helped Muslims find work, increasing to 43% of over-65s, 45% of those with no formal educational qualifications, and 48% of those thinking that there is sometimes good reason to be prejudiced.

Muslims apart, there were some correlations between religiosity and discriminatory attitudes as a whole. For example, those considering themselves belonging to any religion were more likely to say that there is sometimes good reason to be prejudiced than the non-religious (31% and 25% respectively). Similarly, those who attended religious services at least once a week were twice as likely as Scots in general to believe that same-sex relationships were always or mostly wrong (57% versus 27%).

Scottish attitudes to Muslims and Islam were also explored in last year’s Ipsos MORI Scotland and British Council Scotland research on Muslim Integration in Scotland, which we have covered at:

http://www.brin.ac.uk/news/?p=515

Posted in Attitudes towards Religion, Official data, Survey news | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Muslim-Western Tensions – British Experiences

Posted on July 22, 2011 by Clive D. Field

‘Muslim and Western publics continue to see relations between them as generally bad, with both sides holding negative stereotypes of the other.’ However, there has been ‘somewhat of a thaw in the U.S. and Europe compared with five years ago’.

This is according to the latest findings from the Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project, released on 21 July. It was conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International between 21 March and 15 May 2011 among 23 publics, including Great Britain (where 1,000 adults aged 18 and over were interviewed by telephone).

The Muslim-related questions have been analysed by Pew for six Western publics (Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Spain, and the USA), seven Muslim publics (Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Lebanon, Pakistan, Palestinian Territories, and Turkey) and for Israel.  

The present post mainly focuses on the British data, but the international results may be readily viewed in the report Muslim-Western Tensions Persist, which is available for download at:

http://pewglobal.org/files/2011/07/Pew-Global-Attitudes-Muslim-Western-Relations-FINAL-FOR-PRINT-July-21-2011.pdf

64% of Britons held a favourable opinion of Muslims. This represented a fall of seven points since 2005 (just before 7/7) but a 4% recovery from 2010. It was also, jointly with France, the best figure among the six Western nations, higher than Russia (62%), USA (57%), Germany (45%), and Spain (37%).

Nevertheless, 22% of Britons regarded Muslims unfavourably, which was far more than took the same view of Christians (6%) or Jews (7%). 83% were well-disposed to Christians and 76% to Jews, much the same as in 2004.

Moreover, only 39% of Britons assigned no negative traits to Muslims. Specifically, 43% described them as fanatical, 38% as arrogant, 32% as violent, 29% as selfish, 18% as immoral, and 16% as greedy. Similarly, 61% did not associate Muslims with respect for women, 45% with tolerance, 34% with generosity, and 22% with honesty.

52% in Britain saw most Muslims as wanting to remain distinct from mainstream society, rising to 59% for those without degree-level education. Apart from the USA (51%), other Western countries recorded even higher figures, as much as 72% in Germany. Just 28% of Britons thought Muslims wanted to adopt British customs, albeit an improvement on 19% in 2005 and 22% in 2006.

52% of British adults assessed relations between Muslims around the world and Westerners as being generally bad (nine points less than in 2006) and 40% as generally good. 48% of Americans also said bad, 58% of Spaniards, 61% of Germans, and 62% of French.

Of Britons who said relations were bad, 34% believed Muslims were mostly to blame for this state of affairs (compared with 25% in 2006), 26% Western people, and 24% both groups.

So-called ‘Islamic extremism’ seems to have soured relations. 70% in Britain were concerned about this and a mere 28% unconcerned. Notwithstanding, 70% represented a fall of 7% since the 2006 (post-7/7) survey and a return to 2005 (pre-7/7) levels. Russians (76%) and Germans (73%) were more concerned than Britons, Americans (69%), French (68%), and Spaniards (61%) somewhat less.

In similar vein, 52% in Britain claimed that some religions were more prone to violence than others, and three-quarters of these cited Islam as the single most violent religion (against 63% immediately before 7/7).

59% of Britons thought Muslim nations should be more economically prosperous than they were. This lack of prosperity was largely attributed to internal deficiencies in those nations: government corruption (51%), lack of democracy (46%), lack of education (36%), and Islamic fundamentalism (31%). No more than 15% were willing to allocate blame to US and Western policies.

Finally, a footnote on religion more generally. Professing Christians in the Western countries were asked whether they first considered themselves as citizens of their nation or as Christians. In Britain 63% of Christians placed their nationality first, exactly three times the proportion which put their Christian identity first. This reflected a shift since 2006, when the figures had been 59% and 24%. Americans were most likely to put Christianity (46%) above nationality, French the least (8%).

Posted in Religion in public debate, Survey news | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Antisemitism Worldwide, 2010

Posted on May 15, 2011 by Clive D. Field

23% of all serious acts of violence and vandalism perpetrated against Jews and Jewish property globally in 2010 took place in the UK, according to Antisemitism Worldwide, 2010: General Analysis.

This is a newly published report from Tel Aviv University’s Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Antisemitism and Racism and the Kantor Center for the Study of Contemporary European Jewry. Edited by Roni Stauber, it is available to download at:

http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2010/general-analysis-10.pdf

Of the worldwide total of 614 serious incidents in 2010, 144 were recorded in the UK, the highest number for any single country. France came next, with 134, and then Canada, on 99, followed a long way behind by Germany (38), the United States (28) and Australia (27).

The UK total was 61% down on that for 2009 (374 incidents), when anti-Semitism peaked in response to Israel’s Operation Cast Lead in Gaza. This was larger than the 46% global decrease. UK anti-Semitism in 2010 was at a similar level to 2006 and 2007, according to the Tel Aviv data, but well above the double figures of previous years. 

Stauber attributes the UK’s preeminence in this global league table of anti-Semitism to the ‘very unique’ fact that Britain exhibits a strong presence of both far-right political groups and Muslim pro-Palestinian communities, each of which is viewed as being anti-Jewish.

It should be noted that the Tel Aviv researchers employ a far tighter definition of anti-Semitic incidents than does the Community Security Trust (CST), which has been monitoring anti-Semitism in the UK since 1984.

The CST recorded 639 incidents in the UK in 2010 in its most recent report, which BRIN has covered at:

http://www.brin.ac.uk/news/?p=855

Posted in News from religious organisations | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Child Poverty and Deprivation among Jews

Posted on April 12, 2011 by Clive D. Field

The common identification of Jews with wealth is partly disproved by a new publication from the Institute for Jewish Policy Research. Written by Jonathan Boyd, Child Poverty and Deprivation in the British Jewish Community is available to download at:

http://www.jpr.org.uk/downloads/JPR%20child%20poverty%20report_7.pdf

The report derives from three main sources: a literature review; secondary analysis of existing quantitative data, especially from the 2001 census; and 40 qualitative interviews in 2009-10 with a range of professionals working within Jewish social care organizations, educational institutions, synagogues and other community charities.

The key finding is that, although cases of poverty and deprivation can be found in various parts of the Jewish population, it is among the strictly Orthodox Charedi community, which has grown ‘at an extraordinary rate over the past two decades’, that the issue of child poverty is most acute.

A ‘potentially toxic mix’ has been created by the combination of their large families, relative lack of focus on the secular education and qualifications of Charedi boys, cuts in public benefits, a likely diminution of donations to Jewish charities, and the high cost of maintaining a religious lifestyle. A negative impact on synagogue membership and participation in Jewish youth programmes is predicted.

Posted in News from religious organisations | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Group-Focused Enmity in Europe

Posted on April 11, 2011 by Clive D. Field

Fresh light on anti-Semitism and Islamophobia in Britain is shed in a report published by the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung in Berlin on 11 March 2011. Entitled Intolerance, Prejudice and Discrimination: A European Report, it is written by Andreas Zick, Beate Kupper and Andreas Hovermann. It is available to download from:

http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/do/07908-20110311.pdf

The publication is based upon the Group-Focused Enmity in Europe project which is located at the Bielefeld Institute for Interdisciplinary Research on Conflict and Violence, and which has been supported by funding from a consortium of six foundations.

Fieldwork for the underlying survey was conducted in eight European countries during autumn 2008: France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Italy, The Netherlands, Poland and Portugal. A sample of 1,000 adults aged 16 and over was interviewed by telephone by TNS in each nation.

Attitudes to various groups were measured, but this particular report concentrates on a sub-set of six types of prejudice: anti-immigrant views, anti-Semitism, homophobia, Islamophobia (or anti-Muslim attitudes, as they are termed here), racism and sexism.

There continues to be evidence of anti-Semitism in Britain, with 14% of adults agreeing that Jews had too much influence, 22% that they tried to take advantage of being victims during the Nazi era, and 23% that they did not care about anything or anybody except their own kind.

However, these figures were actually the lowest for all the eight countries, with the exception of The Netherlands. Britain and The Netherlands came joint first on a fourth measure, agreeing that Jews enriched the national culture (72%). Hungary and Poland were generally most negative about the Jews.

Levels of hostility rose somewhat when the question of Israel-Palestine was put to a half-sample. 36% of Britons said that, given Israeli policy, they could understand why people did not like Jews. Still more, 42%, concurred that Israel was conducting a war of extermination against the Palestinians, which was a bigger proportion than in Hungary, Italy and The Netherlands.

Negativity towards Muslims was greater still. 45% of Britons considered that there were too many Muslims in the country, 50% claimed that they were too demanding, and 47% regarded Islam as a religion of intolerance.

These three items were combined into a scale of anti-Muslim attitudes. While Hungary and Poland were about as Islamophobic as they were anti-Semitic, the mean scores for the remaining nations were much higher than for anti-Semitism, Britain included. Portugal was least Islamophobic.

Other questions did not form part of this scale but, administered to a half-sample, reinforced the evidence of enmity. Only 39% in Britain felt that the Muslim culture fitted well into the country and Europe, and 82% viewed Muslim attitudes towards women as contradicting British values. 38% believed that many Muslims perceived terrorists as heroes, and 26% that the majority of Muslims found terrorism justifiable.

Anti-Muslim sentiments were shown to have an especially strong relationship with anti-immigrant views, and this was particularly true of Britain. The correlation between anti-immigrant and anti-Semitic opinions was less marked but still observable. Anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic attitudes had a relationship of medium strength.

Correlations with self-assessed religiosity were explored in a separate report on the same survey: Beate Kupper and Andreas Zick, Religion and Prejudice in Europe: New Empirical Findings (Alliance Publishing Trust, 2010), which can be found at:

http://www.alliancemagazine.org/books/religionandprejudice.pdf

Whereas, for Europe as a whole, the researchers discovered that ‘the more religious individuals are, the more prejudiced they are’, the pattern in Britain was more complex.

For Britons greater religiosity was most associated with sexism and homophobia, and – to a lesser extent – with racism and anti-immigrant views. In the cases of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, the very religious were the least prejudiced of the four religiosity groups but the quite religious were the most prejudiced.

Overall, 5% of Britons described themselves as very religious, 29% as quite religious, 27% as not very religious, and 38% as not at all religious. A YouGov poll of 5,000 plus respondents for The Sun last month revealed that 27% saw themselves as religious and 71% not.

Posted in Measuring religion, Religion in public debate, Survey news | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Domestic Abuse and British Jews

Posted on March 30, 2011 by Clive D. Field

We reported four months ago (http://www.brin.ac.uk/news/?p=718) that Jewish Women’s Aid (JWA), the UK national charity for Jewish women and their children affected by domestic violence, was intending to carry out an online survey into the incidence and perceptions of domestic abuse against women in the Jewish community.

The results of that survey have just been published as chapter 3 (pp. 44-58) of Sarah Abramson and Cora Peterson, ‘You know a Jewish Woman suffering from Domestic Abuse’: Domestic Abuse and the British Jewish Community. The 96-page report, exclusively previewed in the Jewish Chronicle of 11 March 2011, is available to download from:

http://www.jwa.org.uk/documents/JewishWomensAidResearchonDomesticAbuseMarch2011.pdf

Data collection took place online, via Survey Monkey, between 15 November 2010 and 15 January 2011. The study yielded 842 complete responses, 94% of them from women and 81% from London and the Home Counties.

Recruitment of interviewees was primarily by means of emails forwarded by friends or colleagues (53%), JWA communications (19%) and synagogues (15%).

It is readily conceded by the authors that the sample was entirely self-selecting, non-random and probably not statistically representative of the national Jewish female population.

‘It may be … that people with personal experiences of DV [domestic violence], or knowledge of someone close to them experiencing DV, were more likely to fill out the survey. It is also possible that people sympathetic to JWA objectives were more inclined to take the survey.’ Awareness of JWA (84%) was certainly exceptionally high.

The profile of respondents, while covering a reasonable spread of ages and Jewish religious traditions, was also skewed towards the highly-educated. No fewer than 69% of the women had been educated to university level and 35% had postgraduate qualifications.

Although slavish reliance should not therefore be placed on the data, they are nevertheless still interesting as an indication of a social problem which, despite being hardly discussed in a public religious context, is probably just as widespread among practising members of faith communities as it is in the rest of the population.

Indeed, 68% of these Jewish respondents assessed that domestic abuse occurred at about the same rate in the Jewish community as in society at large. The proportion of Jewish women in the study claiming to have personally experienced domestic abuse (27%) was also close to the national statistic of 25%. Two-thirds of the abuse of Jewish women was at the hands of a partner and the rest by a family member.

Moreover, 55% of respondents said that they knew somebody else who had been a victim of domestic abuse. The number having either direct or indirect experience or knowledge of abuse was 60%, rising to 69% among those in their forties.

78% stated that they had never heard, or could not recall hearing, a rabbi addressing domestic abuse, and only 13% recollected a rabbi condemning such abuse. Just 7% viewed rabbis as a primary source of support in abuse cases, compared with 51% for friends, relatives and neighbours, 44% for JWA, 34% for the police, and 30% for health professionals.

Posted in News from religious organisations, Survey news | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Israel-Palestine Conflict

Posted on March 21, 2011 by Clive D. Field

Public perceptions of the religious dimensions of the Israel-Palestine conflict are illuminated in a six-nation ICM poll released on 13 March and undertaken on behalf of the Al Jazeera Centre for Studies (established in 2006), the Middle East Monitor (MEMO, founded in 2009) and the European Muslim Research Centre (EMRC), launched in 2010 at the University of Exeter.

Fieldwork was conducted online on 19-25 January 2011 among a representative sample of 7,045 adults aged 18 and over in Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands and Spain. There were 2,031 British respondents.

The survey posed ten questions relating to the Israel-Palestine situation, several of them sub-divided, and only those touching overtly on religion are highlighted here. Broader findings can be found in the three major published research outputs from the poll:

the 41 pages of national data tables at:

http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/pdfs/2011_march_memo_israelpalestine_poll.pdf

the 44-page ICM report and analysis at:

http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/downloads/other_reports/public-perceptions-of-the-palestine-israel-conflict-FINAL-REPORT-icm.pdf

the 50-page MEMO report and analysis at:

http://www.middleeastmonitor.org.uk/downloads/reports/european-public-perceptions-of-the-israel-palestine-conflict-memo.pdf

Additionally, through the kindness of ICM, BRIN has been given access to the unpublished data tables for Great Britain, giving breaks by gender, age, working status, housing tenure, education level, ethnicity and region.

Asked which three or four things came into mind on hearing the words ‘Israeli-Palestinian conflict’, 47% of the weighted sample of Europeans cited religious conflict, ranging from 34% in The Netherlands to 51% in France. The British figure was 46%.

Answering the same question, 24% of Europeans mentioned Islamic organizations, with a low of 20% in Britain (but 27% among the over-55s) and a high of 30% in The Netherlands. 17% of Europeans referred to Muslims/Arabs, including 15% of Britons (rising to 21% in the North-West, Yorkshire and the Humber and the East Midlands).

65% of Europeans agreed that Israel is a country where there is oppression and domination by one religious group over another. The proportion was highest in Spain (72%) and stood at 57% in Britain, but reached 63% among men and ethnic minorities and 66% for those with a university degree or equivalent. Only 9% of Britons and 13% of Europeans said that all religious groups were treated the same in Israel, the remainder giving other replies.

17% of Europeans and 23% of Britons (the largest proportion of all six countries, and increasing to 30% for the over-55s) agreed that European citizens who are Jewish should be allowed to serve in the Israeli army. 34% and 20% respectively disagreed, with 22% and 29% uncertain.

12% of Europeans and 6% of Britons agreed that being critical of Israel makes a person anti-Semitic. 50% and 52% respectively disagreed, with 17% and 25% undecided. Agreement was highest in Germany (19%). In Britain disagreement reached 59% with men, the over-55s and Londoners and 61% among the university-educated.

36% of Europeans and 28% of Britons agreed that the Israel-Palestine conflict fuels anti-Semitism in Europe. 21% and 20% respectively disagreed, with 18% and 28% don’t knows. Agreement was highest in France (46%). In Britain peak agreement was registered by those owning their homes outright and graduates (32% each), the over-55s (33%), residents of the North-West (34%) and the Welsh (35%).

39% of Europeans and 32% of Britons agreed that the Israel-Palestine conflict fuels Islamophobia in Europe. 20% and 19% respectively disagreed, with 16% and 26% uncertain. Agreement was highest in Italy (45%). In Britain agreement peaked among the 18-24s, graduates and Londoners (36% each), ethnic minorities (38%), residents of the South-West (39%) and students (41%).

48% of Europeans and 40% of Britons agreed that Israel exploits the history of the sufferings of the Jewish people to generate public support. Just 13% and 11% respectively disagreed, with 17% and 27% don’t knows. Agreement was especially high in Germany (53%) and Spain (54%). In Britain 51% of the over-55s and 48% of men were critical of Israel for being exploitative in this regard.

Three brief comments on the overall British data (including questions not considered here) may be ventured.

First, a relatively high proportion of Britons (one-quarter or more) express no clear views on the Israel-Palestine conflict. To a limited extent, this may indicate a position of benign neutrality, but more typically it is likely to reflect a lack of familiarity with the issues. The politics of the Middle East are not necessarily followed closely by everybody.

Second, there is significant criticism of Israel, both for the way it functions as a state and for the actions it has taken on the Palestinian question. This contrasts markedly with the 1950s and 1960s when Israel was widely accorded ‘underdog’ status in Britain. Now it is often seen as oppressor. The trend data can be studied in Clive Field, ‘John Bull’s Judeophobia: Images of the Jews in British Public Opinion Polls since the late 1930s’, Jahrbuch für Antisemitismusforschung, Vol. 15, 2006, pp. 259-300.

Third, much of this antipathy to Israel is probably rooted, not simply in increasing sympathy for the plight of the Palestinians, but in concerns that Israel’s role in the Middle East is exacerbating religious tensions in Britain and Europe. This is true both of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, given that preoccupation with Israel-Palestine has been a major factor in giving British Muslims a public profile and voice. International relations are, therefore, frequently being viewed through a British domestic lens.

The overall tenor of the findings, and of the textual reports which analyse and interpret them, seems likely to create some controversy. Doubtless, there will be negative reactions from Israeli and some Jewish quarters in due course. Whether this survey sparks quite so much outrage as the 2003 European Commission poll, which identified Israel as the greatest threat to world peace, is more doubtful.

Posted in Religion and Politics, Survey news | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Religion, Youth and Sexuality

Posted on March 12, 2011 by Clive D. Field

‘Sex and religion are generally considered uncomfortable bedfellows.’ So begins a new 24-page report which offers fascinating insights into the diversity of interactions between religion and sexuality among the young.

Authored by Andrew Kam-Tuck Yip (University of Nottingham), Michael Keenan (Nottingham Trent University) and Sarah-Jane Page (Durham University), the document can be downloaded from:

http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/sociology/pdfs/rys-research-report.pdf

Entitled Religion, Youth and Sexuality: Selected Key Findings from a Multi-Faith Exploration, it represents the first published output from a 26-month project funded by the Religion and Society Programme of the Arts and Humanities Research Council and the Economic and Social Research Council between January 2009 and February 2011.

A full-length book from the project, by the same authors, and provisionally entitled Religious and Sexual Journeys: A Multi-Faith Exploration of Young Believers, will follow from Ashgate next year.

The research was undertaken among 693 young people aged 18-25 living in the UK and who were Buddhists, Christians (the majority, 57%), Hindus, Jews, Muslims or Sikhs and of varying sexualities. 82% were British citizens. 65% were white. 72% were students. 66% were women. 66% were single.

Information was gathered in three stages. All 693 participants completed an online questionnaire between May 2009 and June 2010. Some were then selected for further investigation in stages 2 and 3. These involved, respectively, face-to-face interviews with 61 participants between November 2009 and June 2010; and video diaries recorded by 24 participants over seven days between February and November 2010.

The report contains both quantitative and qualitative data. In considering the former, however, BRIN users should bear in mind that, for reasons which are not fully explained in the report (but which must doubtless include cost and the sensitive nature of the subject matter), it was not possible to select respondents according to recognized random or quota sampling methods.

Therefore, it remains an open question just how statistically representative the findings may be. From this perspective, it is worth quoting in full the section of the report which describes methodology:

‘The participants were recruited in diverse ways. Primarily, the research team sent publicity posters, postcards and e-mails to a wide variety of groups such as those working with religious young adults, sexual health organisations, support groups for sexual minorities, cultural associations and university religious and non-religious student groups.’

‘The team also used various personal networks and asked participants to refer others to the project. A website and a Facebook page were also established to publicise the project. Further, advertisements were placed in printed and online media.’

That said, here is a selection of numerical headlines from the report:

RELIGION

  • 78% felt their faith made them a better person
  • 42% said their faith was the greatest influence over how they lived their life
  • 70% said they made decisions in their everyday life with reference to their religion
  • 67% did not believe that being religious made their everyday life more difficult
  • 74% considered religion gave them a connection to their community
  • 48% regarded themselves as religious liberals and 25% as conservatives
  • 65% were involved in a religious community
  • 57% attended a religious service at least once a week
  • 55% reported the majority of their friends were religious
  • 65% agreed religion was a force for good in the world
  • 69% agreed their religion is negatively portrayed in the media
  • 69% (75% of Christians) considered religious people are stigmatized in Britain
  • 40% had hidden their religious identity from others
  • 63% agreed their religion emphasized equality of the sexes
  • 73% (56% of Muslims) disagreed that religious authority figures should be male

SEXUALITY

  • 70% agreed their religious faith shaped their sexual attitudes
  • 63% agreed their religious faith shaped their sexual practices
  • 74% defined themselves as heterosexual, 10% as homosexual and 8% as bisexual
  • 43% were sexually active, ranging from 77% for Buddhists to 20% for Muslims
  • 65% agreed consenting adults should be free to express their sexuality as they wish
  • 58% agreed casual sex is detrimental to personal well-being
  • 30% regarded celibacy as fulfilling to sexual health
  • 58% agreed that ideally sex should only occur within marriage, but …
  • 57% thought sex could be fulfilling outside marriage, if in a loving context
  • 83% agreed monogamy should be the ideal for a partnered relationship, but …
  • 35% felt that, while ideal, monogamy in a partnered relationship is difficult to achieve
  • 58% said heterosexuality and homosexuality should be treated on equal terms, but …
  • 52% regarded heterosexuality as the ideal
  • 55% (76% of Buddhists, 22% of Sikhs) agreed their religion was positive towards sexuality
  • 56% thought their religion opposed any sexuality other than heterosexuality
  • 51% agreed their religious leaders were knowledgeable about sexuality
  • 76% agreed there is too much focus on sex in the media
Posted in Survey news | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Census Snippets

Posted on March 11, 2011 by Clive D. Field

Combined household and individual questionnaires for the 2011 population census have been dropping on doormats all week in preparation for the official enumeration date of Sunday, 27 March. They can be completed on paper or online.

This will be the twenty-first decennial census in Britain since 1801 (none was held in 1941, on account of the Second World War). It may also be the last in the present form, since Government is investigating cheaper and faster options for collecting data in future.

Anybody interested in learning more about the history of the census in Britain may like to view a current exhibition at The British Library’s Folio Society Gallery. Entitled Census and Society: Why Everyone Counts, it runs until 29 May.

As in 2001, when it was first introduced, this year’s census will include a voluntary question on religious affiliation. Prior to that, the only other official census of religion in mainland Britain in modern times had been of church accommodation and attendance, in 1851.

The question in England and Wales (individual question 20) in 2011 reads: ‘What is your religion?’ The options given are: no religion, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, and any other religion (write in).

Anybody wishing to specify that they are agnostic, atheist or humanist is asked to select the ‘any other religion’ category and to elaborate in the space provided.

Any Christian wishing to identify that they belong to a particular denomination is also advised to tick ‘any other religion’ and to write in their denomination.

The question in Scotland (individual question 13) reads: ‘What religion, religious denomination or body do you belong to?’ The options given are: none, Church of Scotland, Roman Catholic, other Christian (write in), Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh, Jewish, Hindu, and another religion (write in).

Nationwide advice is provided by Government to those worried that their child is too young to identify with a particular religion. This is either to select ‘no religion’ or to leave the question blank.

There has been a certain amount of controversy and advocacy surrounding the religion question, and the primary purpose of this post is to provide a selective round-up of some of the stories which have been in the news.

We have already reported – http://www.brin.ac.uk/news/?p=678 – that the British Humanist Association (BHA) launched a campaign on 27 October last to persuade the non-religious to register as such in the census.

The BHA has been concerned that the somewhat leading wording of the census question, coupled with a lingering habit of using religion as a cultural identifier, resulted in inflating the numbers of genuinely religious people in 2001.

The BHA’s initial strategy was to try and persuade the Office for National Statistics (ONS) to rephrase the question. Rebuffed in this attempt (although ONS did agree to offer guidance after the census on the ways in which data should and should not be used), the BHA shifted tactics.

The BHA has been using local leafleting, advertising and online communications with the somewhat tongue-in-cheek campaign slogan of: ‘If you’re not religious, for God’s sake say so’.

However, the BHA has recently been told that posters bearing this or similar slogans are likely to cause widespread and serious offence, to vociferous BHA protests of censorship and, implicitly, reintroduction of the (repealed) blasphemy laws by the back door.

Companies owning advertising space at railway stations have refused to display three different BHA census posters, following this advice to BHA from the Advertising Standards Authority’s Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP).

CAP obviously had at the back of its mind the complaints generated by a previous BHA poster campaign, in 2009, which asserted: ‘There is probably no god, now stop worrying and enjoy your life’.

CAP’s recommendation has likewise affected the BHA census posters being displayed on 200 buses in London and six other cities. They have had to be reworded to read: ‘Not religious? In this year’s census, say so.’

The Pagan Federation has also issued a press notice proclaiming that ‘Pagans are standing up to be counted and coming out of the broom closet for census day’. They are being encouraged to write in their affiliation (the Federation having not prevailed on ONS to include a specific box for Pagans).

The Federation is arguing that the 42,000 individuals who registered as Pagans in 2001 were ‘only the tip of the iceberg’, citing research by Professor Ronald Hutton indicating that there were actually around 250,000 Pagans in the country in that year.

The Foundation for Holistic Spirituality, based in Glastonbury, is pursuing a different line. It is urging people to write in ‘holistic’ at the census, as ‘shorthand for an openhearted, open-minded approach that includes all spiritual paths. It recognises that everything is connected and celebrates diversity.’ This represents ‘a third way beyond traditional faiths and secularism’.

Christian coverage of the census has partly been a response to the BHA’s activities. For instance, writing in the Church Times for 4 March, Paul Vallely, Associate Editor of The Independent, defended the status quo of the census approach in the face of the ‘fundamentalism’ of the ‘new atheists’.

The census, Vallely continued, allows people to define themselves religiously as they feel comfortable with. ‘Religious belief, behaviour, and identity are not necessarily connected’, he added.

In his Daily Telegraph blog for 27 February, George Pitcher also weighed in against the BHA and in defence of people’s right to self-identify as ‘cultural Christians’ and to rejoice in living in a ‘Christian country’.

‘It isn’t religious people who want to control the way that people think’, wrote Pitcher. ‘It looks to me like some secularists are growing ever more desperate to seize that control.’

In a press statement on 4 March, Theos, the public theology think tank, criticized the BHA’s census campaign as ‘misconceived and unnecessary’, while also paying tribute to BHA for doing ‘a good job of keeping religion in the news’ overall.

Theos argued that BHA’s census campaign ‘grossly exaggerates the extent to which the religious affiliation results of the 2001 census have shaped government policy or influenced spending decisions’.

Theos pointed out that ‘no religion’ is the first option in the census question and ‘this means that people have ample opportunity to deny religious affiliation should they wish to …’

‘If the Archbishop of Canterbury were to launch a campaign pleading for people to tick the Christian box, it would be rightly ridiculed as a sign of desperation’, Theos concluded.

The Theos statement provided the backbone for a lengthy article about the census in the Methodist Recorder for 10 March. This also quoted spokespersons for the Methodist Church as ‘welcoming’ the debate on the census question for providing ‘an opportunity to discuss the nature of faith and religion in contemporary society’, especially beyond the context of conventional Sunday worship (such as through Fresh Expressions).

Otherwise, comment on the census in the Christian media has been limited, although the Church of England Newspaper for 25 February included an article headlined ‘religious question to feature in the census’. By way of introduction, it jocularly reminded the readership that ‘King David was famously punished for counting the people of Israel …’

Meanwhile, the Roman Catholic weekly The Universe for 6 March majored on the hopes of the Federation of Irish Societies that Catholic churches would actively engage with its campaign to get Irish people resident in Britain to register as ethnic Irish at the census. In 2001, 10% of first-generation and 91% of second-generation Irish failed to do so.

The Muslim Council of Britain, which was very supportive of the inclusion of a religion question in 2001, has so far not issued a press release on the 2011 census. An article in the Muslim Weekly for 25 February focused on the need for Pakistani business owners to ensure that their employees knew the postcode of their place of work in order to complete the census form.

The main preoccupation of the Sikh community has been to get ONS to agree to include Sikh as an explicit ethnic as well as religious category (and to do the same for Jews). They have not succeeded in doing so, despite the threat last year of legal action by the Sikh Channel and Sikh Federation against ONS.

The Network of Buddhist Organisations is running a ‘Tick the Box for Buddhism’ campaign in connection with the census. This has a Facebook presence and is advertising in Big Issue.

The Network would actually prefer there to be no religion question in the census, on account of its methodological imperfections. However, given its inclusion, and the influence it is likely to have on Government policy, the Network wants to see ‘more accurate figures for Buddhism’ than it feels were achieved in 2001.

The Board of Deputies of British Jews is encouraging all members of the Jewish community to identify themselves as such in the census. It has created a special census webpage and email box and issued a full set of online frequently asked questions (FAQs).

One of the more interesting is: ‘I’m not religious – should I still tick the “Jewish” box?’ The answer given is: ‘It doesn’t matter whether you are religious or not – if you consider yourself to be Jewish, you should tick the “Jewish” box. If you really don’t feel comfortable doing that, you can still specify “Jewish” for your ethnic group. There is no “Jewish” tick box, so you will need to write it on the form, but it will still be counted.’

In an article in the Jewish Chronicle for 25 February, David Graham, Director of Social and Demographic Research at the Institute for Jewish Policy Research, spelled out various policy and practical reasons why Jews should self-identify at the census.

A separate report in the same issue highlighted the efforts of leaders of Orthodox Jewry to ensure their movement participated more fully in the census, following the apparent undercount of the Charedi population in 2001.

This is attributed in part to the fact that Charedis tend to have large families, and that the standard household schedule only has space to accommodate details of six persons, necessitating them to ask for an additional form.

Another potential cause of Jewish underenumeration is flagged up in the Church of England Newspaper for 11 March: ‘there are signs that some Jews are reluctant to identify their faith on the census form in case details are leaked to anti-Semitic groups’.

One of the more surprising (and misleading) outcomes of the 2001 census was the success of the internet campaign beforehand to get people to register as Jedi Knights of Star Wars fame.

Some 390,000 individuals did so, making the Jedis the fifth largest religious body in the country (counting those with no religion as a body). There is a Facebook group to Put Jedi as your Religion in the UK 2011 Census.

The Sunday Times of 27 February reported some support to get ‘Dudeism’ recognized as a religion (named after the character The Dude, played by Jeff Bridges, from the 1998 comedy film The Big Lebowski).

There is a Facebook group called Dudeism for the 2011 Census, dedicated to the Church of the Latter-Day Dude. Another Facebook group is Heavy Metal for the 2011 Census, which has some 35,000 members, all determined to put heavy metal on Britain’s religious map.

Those of us with an objective interest in religious data will naturally hope that the integrity of the 2011 census will not be compromised unduly by too many ‘jokey’ endeavours.

To counteract the tendency, ONS has been utilizing social media, including Facebook, and YouTube, the video site, to make young people aware of the importance of filling out the census forms sensibly.

Posted in News from religious organisations, Official data, Religion in public debate, Religion in the Press | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments