Apostasy and blasphemy may seem to many like artifacts of history. But in dozens of countries around the world, laws against apostasy and blasphemy remain on the books and often are enforced.
Last December, for instance, authorities in Sudan charged 25 men for apostasy – the act of abandoning one’s faith — including by converting to another religion. The men face the death penalty for following a different interpretation of Islam than the one sanctioned by the government. And, in Pakistan, police are currently pursuing a Christian accused of sending an allegedly blasphemous poem to a friend. Blasphemy – defined as speech or actions considered to be contemptuous of God or the divine – is a capital crime in Pakistan.
A new Pew Research Center analysis finds that, as of 2014, about a quarter of the world’s countries and territories (26%) had anti-blasphemy laws or policies, and that more than one-in-ten (13%) nations had laws or policies penalizing apostasy. The legal punishments for such transgressions vary from fines to death. Read More →
Many Americans are wary of the prospect of implanting a computer chip in their brains to improve their mental abilities or adding synthetic blood to their veins to make them stronger and faster, according to a major new Pew Research Center survey gauging the public’s views on technologies that could enhance human abilities. And this is particularly true of those who are highly religious.
For instance, a majority of highly religious Americans (based on an index of common religious measures) say they would not want to use a potential gene-editing technology that would give their baby a much reduced risk of disease (64%), while almost the same share of U.S. adults with “low” religious commitment would want to use such a technology (63%).
Similar patterns exist on questions about whether people would want to enhance themselves by implanting a computer chip in their brains or by having synthetic blood transfusions. Not only are highly religious Americans less open to healthy people using these potential technologies, but they are more likely to cite a moral opposition to them – and even to connect them directly to religious themes. Read More →
Hillary Clinton is now officially the first woman to top the ticket of a major U.S. political party. Her candidacy and controversial comments about women made by Donald Trump have raised the question of whether a long-standing gender gap in American politics could grow wider in 2016.
In the 1972 and 1976 elections, there was no difference in candidate support between men and women. Over the last nine presidential elections, however, women have consistently voted for Democratic presidential candidates at higher rates than men. Most recently, in 2012, there was a 10-percentage-point gender gap: 55% of women voted for Democrat Barack Obama over Republican Mitt Romney, compared with 45% of men. The gap in 2012 was little different than it had been in Ronald Reagan’s victory over Jimmy Carter in 1980, when 45% of women and just 36% of men voted for Carter. The size of the gender gap has fluctuated within a relatively narrow range over the past 36 years; on average, women have been 8 percentage points more likely than men to back the Democratic candidate in elections since 1980. Read More →
Educational attainment among U.S. Latinos has been changing rapidly in recent years, reflecting the group’s growth in the nation’s public K-12 schools and colleges. Over the past decade, the Hispanic high school dropout rate has declined and college enrollment has increased, even as Hispanics trail other groups in earning a bachelor’s degree.
The issue of education is an important one for Hispanics. Roughly eight-in-ten (83%) cited education as very important to their vote in the 2016 election, ranking it alongside the economy, health care and terrorism as a top issue.
Yet, for many Hispanics, economic factors remain an obstacle to college enrollment. In a 2014 National Journal poll, 66% of Hispanics who got a job or entered the military directly after high school cited the need to help support their family as a reason for not enrolling in college, compared with 39% of whites.
Here are five facts about U.S. Latinos and education:
Read More →
Category: 5 Facts
This week Democrats gathered in Philadelphia to officially nominate Hillary Clinton as their party’s presidential candidate. How do Americans view Clinton – a fixture in national politics for more than 25 years – as the race between her and Donald Trump for the White House begins in earnest?
Here’s a roundup of key Pew Research Center findings on views of Hillary Clinton, her politics and the impact she would have on Washington.
1More voters say they know a lot about where Clinton stands on important issues than say the same about Trump. About half (53%) say they know a lot about Clinton’s positions; by comparison, fewer (43%) are confident they know where Trump stands.
Republicans and Republican-leaning independents are just as likely to say they know a lot about where Clinton stands (50%) as they are about Trump (53%). Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents, on the other hand, say they know much more about Clinton’s positions (57% say a lot) than Trump’s (36%). Read More →
Category: 5 Facts
A majority of black Americans say that at some point in their lives they’ve experienced discrimination or were treated unfairly because of their race or ethnicity, but blacks who have attended college are more likely than those without any college experience to say so, according to a recent Pew Research Center survey.
About eight-in-ten blacks with at least some college experience (81%) say they’ve faced discrimination or been treated unfairly because of their race or ethnicity, compared with 59% of blacks who have never attended college.
These differences also extend to more specific incidents of racial discrimination. For example, blacks who have attended college are more likely than those who have not to say they have been met with suspicion or that someone has questioned their intelligence. Some 55% of blacks with at least some college education say that in the past 12 months someone has acted as if they were suspicious of them because of their race or ethnicity, while a similar share (52%) say people have treated them as if they weren’t smart. Among blacks with a high school diploma or less, those shares are lower, 38% and 37% respectively.
And when asked whether their race or ethnicity has made it harder, easier or hasn’t made much of a difference in getting ahead in life, about half (49%) of blacks with some college experience say their race has made it harder for them to be successful, compared with 29% of those with a high school education or less. Read More →
Pew Research Center’s new survey on human enhancement finds a broad wariness about the prospect of technologies aimed at making people smarter, stronger and healthier. Americans who are highly religious tend to be the most concerned about these possible developments, which include genetic engineering, cognitive augmentation and synthetic blood.
Fact Tank sat down with two experts on science and bioethics who have different views on human enhancement – Christian Brugger and Anders Sandberg – to explore what these new findings might mean. Brugger, who is a professor of moral theology at St. John Vianney Theological Seminary in Denver, Colorado, believes that people are right to be concerned about the social impact of human enhancement. Sandberg, a research fellow at the Future of Humanity Institute at Oxford University, thinks that, on balance, human enhancement will improve and enrich our lives.
Our new survey shows that most American adults see the prospect of human enhancement with wariness and worry rather than enthusiasm and hope. Why do you think this might be the case?
Christian Brugger: It’s not because Americans are anti-science or because they suffer from irrational fear of change. They worry because they perceive a future about which they have grave doubts, a future where, by design, humans possess radically different capacities, where biotechnical interventions create a preferential class of enhanced individuals introducing even greater social disparities, and hence conflicts, than we already struggle with. Perhaps, beneath all this, is a future where our natural capacities come to be seen not as the glory of the human person, but obstacles that must be overcome.
Anders Sandberg: People’s attitudes to something in the future tend to be in “far mode” and much more based on abstract principles than when dealing with something in the here and now. In “near mode” we are much more pragmatic. People were rather negative to IVF and heart transplants before they became common. Hence I think current public attitudes are not very good predictors for attitudes in the future. Read More →
Over the years, Pew Research Center has tracked how the world views America, whether the measure was confidence in the U.S. president, the American government’s respect for personal freedoms or the overall favorability of the U.S. In this year’s poll of 10 European countries, four Asia-Pacific nations and Canada, views of the U.S. and its president were mainly positive, continuing the trend of the past seven years. But when we asked people abroad how they saw Americans given a list of characteristics, the answers were more of a mixed bag.
Half or more in 15 of 16 nations (including the U.S.) described Americans as optimistic, and majorities in 14 countries said Americans are hardworking, according to the survey which asked about three traits considered to be positive and three that were negative.
But in only five of 16 countries did half or more of those surveyed credit Americans with the positive trait of tolerance – and one of those countries was the U.S. Half or more in 11 countries thought Americans are arrogant and many said they are greedy. While fewer people associated “violent” with Americans, there are still some countries in which more than half of people said that was the case. Read More →
Many in the general public expect scientific and technological innovation to bring helpful change to society. Yet, when Americans are asked about the potential use of emerging technologies that could push the boundaries of human abilities, they are far more cautious about the morality and effects of these advances.
A new Pew Research Center survey examined public attitudes about the potential use of three emerging technologies that could fundamentally improve people’s health, cognitive or physical capacities. The specific examples: gene editing to give healthy babies a much reduced risk of serious diseases and conditions over their lifetime, implanting a computer chip in the brain to give a healthy person a much improved ability to concentrate and process information, and a transfusion with synthetic blood to give healthy people much improved speed, strength and stamina.
Here are some key takeaways from the report:
1While the public expresses more worry than enthusiasm about human enhancements, most expect many enhancements will happen within the next 50 years. Fully 81% of U.S. adults expect artificially made organs to be routinely available for transplant by the year 2066. Roughly two-thirds (66%) of Americans say scientists will probably or definitely cure most forms of cancer within 50 years.
None of the techniques that anchor this study are available for enhancing purposes today. But many people foresee a future where each would be commonplace. Roughly half of adults (54%) think the idea of implanted computer chips is likely to be a routine occurrence in the future. Some 48% say humans will definitely or probably use implanted sensors to monitor or adjust all food and medications that enter the bloodstream by the year 2066. And a similar share of adults, 47%, foresees a future with almost no birth defects because of genetic modification of embryos prior to birth. Read More →
Category: 5 Facts
The voters who backed Bernie Sanders during the Democratic primaries differed from those of Hillary Clinton on several major issues. But in most cases, these gaps were dwarfed by the gulf between the backers of either Democratic candidate and Republican voters.
On nearly all issues where Clinton and Sanders backers diverged, they did so because Sanders supporters were more to the left of Clinton supporters and further away from the opinions of GOP voters.
One example is national security: About half (51%) of Democratic and Democratic-leaning registered voters who supported Sanders for the nomination said their bigger concern was that government anti-terrorism policies had gone too far in restricting civil liberties, while 33% were more worried that they have not gone far enough to protect the country, according to an analysis of surveys conducted in March and April, during the heat of the primary campaign. Opinion among Clinton supporters was nearly the reverse: 51% worried more about anti-terror policies not going far enough, while 35% worried more about them going too far. Read More →