There have been a few terrorism arrests of Muslims as well. I think the great majority of the arrests have involved pretty unimpressive would-be terrorists (the FBI provides them the weapons, money, and plot, then arrests them), but there have also been a couple of apparently quite serious attacks headed off by the Feds arresting the would-be terrorists before they managed to do any damage.

All this is not consistent with a world in which any large fraction of Muslims in the US are actively interested in becoming terrorists.

Les (#94):“Elliot, I know you’re not suspicious of all Muslims. But you’ve given the impression that you’re suspicious of all Muslims that you haven’t met and don’t know.“

If you have that impression, that’s due to poor reading on your part, or faulty assumptions. I can’t help that.

“You think the Muslims you know have rejected terrorism because of “the power of American culture.” Not because they’re individuals with unfathomably complex perspectives on life and morality, but because they’re here in America.“

Many have become enlightened by living in the West. Much of the Muslim world is pre-enlightenment. So, it’s a good thing for people to be exposed to other cultures, particularly if they are born in a place where brutality is accepted and people are discouraged from questioning authority.

I didn’t say all immigrants are enlightened only because they are here. People in relatively wealthy families tend to have more of a chance in their home country of having more education, and less of a chance to have their freedom squashed so harshly.

Yes, these things are complex. If you took away from what I wrote that I saw things in simple, black and white distinctions, you’re mistaken.

I appreciate your comments on war and prison populations. It is precisely because of those civilian casualties that I went from ambivalence to being anti-war. I’ve also been an opponent of vice crimes for even longer. I see these as an abandonment of old American tendencies towards avoiding foreign entanglements and respecting individual freedoms. Or, perhaps, the evils of slavery and segregation, having been eliminated, have been replaced with new evils.

As for Muslims living overseas, like I said, there’s a wide range of attributes. But in the big picture, the amount of support that radicals get could only be reduced by more enlightened social values.

I’m not as optimistic as you. The Taliban is resilient in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Muslim Brotherhood is gaining in power in Egypt. Syria and Iran suppress civil unrest with an iron fist, with impunity.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/18/rais-bhuiyan-pleads-to-spare-mark-stroman_n_902137.html

I’m glad to live here, where there are relatively more freedoms than there are, say, in a country like Pakistan or Iran. But those countries aren’t less free because they’re Muslim. They’re less free because they’re conservative.

Every culture has its share of people who think someone else’s culture or country has more rotten people in it, and none of it matters. All that matters is how individuals behave, being genuinely curious about individual people and their characters. And painting over a billion people with the same brush is not only demonstrably inaccurate, it’s the opposite of curiosity.

You think the Muslims you know have rejected terrorism because of “the power of American culture.” Not because they’re individuals with unfathomably complex perspectives on life and morality, but because they’re here in America. Mind you, this is a culture from where this:

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/rawagallery.php?mghash=a69ba84843a6c778938bd59b65a08f63&mggal=6

is being done on a regular basis for no reason at all and is accepted because those aren’t American women and children. “American culture” imprisons more of its citizens and at higher rates than any other “culture” on the planet.

Look, if you were a Muslim praising Muslim culture, I’d be arguing with you, too. I’m happy to live here, happy with certain progress being made in some areas. But cultures are made of individuals making decisions and every individual deserves to be judged (if at all) based on his or her own decisions. The Muslims you’ve never met deserve just as much respect as the Muslims you have, until they do something deserving of less respect. Being suspicious of people you’ve never met and have no knowledge of is not respecting those individuals.

You should really brush up on your Christian mythology. Terrorism, murder, rape, etcetera are explicitly endorsed in the new testament. Or in Jesus own words (KJV):
Luke 19:27
But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.
(and before you start some b.s. Christian apologetic rant, no serious bible scholar disputes that the story is Jesus telling an allegory for himself. The context of the story makes that clear.)

Revelation 2:21-23
23And I will kill her children with death; and all the churches shall know that I am he which searcheth the reins and hearts: and I will give unto every one of you according to your works.
(Again, no apologetic B.S. This is your god commanding this to happen.)

These are the first two examples that popped up off the top of my head. If I actually took the time I could turn up dozens of such verses from the new testament. Really thought, that would be pointless. Jesus was a Jew. Christianity is a subset of Judaism. In your post you tried to throw out the old testament, but you can not do that. Without the old testament the new testament is worthless, and as Jesus said:
Matthew 5:17
“17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.”

Finally to your claim that most of the atrocities committed in the name of Christianity were done by the Catholic Church, yes, you are 100% correct. I was raised Catholic, attended Catholic schools, and embraced Catholicism as an adolescent. One of the greatest things about that was the nuns and school faculty who openly laid out to me the atrocities committed by the Church. I assume they thought doing so would inoculate us against future criticism but honestly I have never met more atheists in one place than in a Catholic high school theology class.

After that bit, though, your basically talking out your ass. First off the Catholic Church used perfectly legitimate biblical justifications for the majority of it’s actions. Like it or not, they did. Name me an atrocity and I can find you a reference to biblical scripture cited as reason for the action (a few notable exceptions excluded such as the pedophiles). Furthermore, the only reason Protestants (as bloody and atrocious as their record is) do not have such a claim to fame is because the outgrowth of Protestantism from the Catholic faith is directly linked to the age of reason. The only reason Protestantism exists is because the Christian mythology was already being shackled by secularism and reason. Protestants could simply not get away with what the Catholic Church had historically because the only reason they existed to begin with (and not killed off as heretics en masse) is because secular reason and authority was beginning to ride roughshod over the Christian religion. The Protestants simply did not have the blind, unquestioning loyalty that the Catholics had had; not that they did not try to match their cruelty (and they gave it a good run).

And there’s just as good a case for terrorism in the Bible.

In the old testament, sure – and that case is rather explicitly denounced in the new testament. While certainly Christians are imperfect and commit sin (an important theological point in Christianity), and there are certainly amazing atrocities committed in the name of Christianity in history (the sacking of Jerusalem in the first crusade, the Inquisition, support in some cases for race-based slavery), the vast majority of them were done/supported by the Catholic Church, using non-Biblical justification. Not saying that makes in all better, by any stretch, but I think useful logical groups are about more than simply taking at face-value whatever name people put on themselves.

So, in Iran, for instance, you’re suggesting that because totalitarian government there supports terrorism (just as the U.S. did throughout the Cold War), that means that most of the citizens of Iran also support terrorism?

Not at all – go do some digging as to where Islamic terror groups get their funding, and you’ll find big chunks come from certain governments, yes… but also that large chunks come from people, as well. Saudi Arabia is the worst and most obvious in this department, but other countries do so as well (especially regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but more than that as well).

To call it “objective fact” that “most Muslims reject terrorism” is to become irrelevant to people that actually pay attention to the world.

There are easy ways to judge these things, you know. (links)

yay, links! Links that A) don’t include the actual studies they talk about or B) give DEAD links to the studies they discuss. Yay.

Also, the claims themselves are problematic. For instance “”bombing and other attacks intentionally aimed at civilians” are “never justified,”" – well, in nation-on-nation war, attacks on production facilities are “intentionally aimed at civilians”, and, when given that example, how many people would claim those are “never justified”? Seriously, that’s not a useful question, and it appears not to match the questions asked in the Muslim countries, either (at least, from the article – can’t see the actual study).

As to what justifies what, the list (given in the very wikipedia link you gave) of Muslim grievances (grievances which justify stuff they might not like in general, just as we justify bombings during war) are fundamental problems at the cultural and moral level. The easiest example is “Unconditional U.S. support to Israel”. While I would hardly call it “unconditional”, it’s certainly very strong… and for the obvious reason that Israel is democratic, western state with values and morals at least largely similar to our own, while all its neighbors are authoritarian (dictator or monarchy) governments, many of which repress their own people and/or intentionally scapegoat Israel and jews in general (taking advantage of another wonderful part of Islam) with state-controlled media. The other listed grievances are mostly similar.

The surveys, IMO, are worthless unless they go deeper than just asking the obvious. Sure, you think terrorism is bad… how do you feel about the Israeli-Palestinian issue? Is terrorism justified there? Ask that, and watch those “approval of terrorism” numbers change FAST!

That’s not to say that I doubt their honesty, mind you – only that I believe people tend to answer such questions with ideals, and that most human beings manage to live quite happily in the cognitive dissonance of contradictory ideals. Terrorism is ALWAYS bad! Blowing up Israeli kids is OK! What else justifies what? What other exceptions to “always” exist?

Even the fast-changing nature of the results themselves is an indicator to me – if the subjects of these surveys can swing their beliefs on this topic 30+ points in less than 10 years, they can swing back just as easily (and farther) – it tells me that at least one of those surveys is wrong. What people really believe and act on often does not match what they WANT to believe and may well claim (even to themselves) to believe.

And that’s completely discounting “Taqiyya” (which I actually think may not apply in these surveys, if they were conducted competently). Whether you consider Taqiyya or not, I think it best to judge by actions, not surveys.

And the actions tell me, based on where terrorists come from and how comfortably public they can be with their views, what I said originally: most muslims reject terrorism quietly, at best.

but both have dog whistle reactions to “libertarian” – but their “trigger image” does exist and is seen frequently enough both hier and on H&R

Rune – I’ll bet Information and Politikken were salivating at his political affiliation…

duracomm – i am (a micro-) an economist. I find equally-appalling ignorance on all sides of the coin. there’s enough ignorance to go around and not enough actual knowledge.

That being said, half the time political issues crop up on Pharyngula, I cringe. It is disappointing that such a pro-reason scientists that scrutinizes every religious or anti-science claim fails to use such critical analysis when it comes to politics. In response to criticism of “new atheists,” he readily points out that atheists are not just a group of uniform back-patters, and that there are wide disagreements, and those disagreements can be healthy. Of course, then he does the same thing that he criticizes with libertarians.

He also universally dismisses all Republicans as “Rethuglicans,” but only denounces Democrats on a case-by-case basis on their own merits. Not that I’m defending Republicans, as the party leadership is a bunch of social conservative nutjobs, but the double-standard is revealing. And no one can argue that Gary Johnson is the same as, say, Michelle Bachmann.

Oh well. I’ll continue to read PZ and just roll my eyes and try to ignore his emotionally-charged political ravings.

demize (#83): “Everything you say if you replace Muslim with Jew would be a classical Anti-Semitic canard.“

Bullshit.

See previous comment.

You’re being very stupid here.

Les (#82): “Elliot, like I said, if the bad behaviors of some members of a group are enough for you to justify feeling suspicious of all members of that group, there’s nothing I can say.“

You’re completely ignoring what I’ve written.

You said, “most don’t support terrorism.”

I responded, “I hope it is true, but I’ve seen enough (first-hand and via media) which sadly makes me unsure of that.”

Where do you get “all members”? The discussion was “most”, i.e., 51% or more. My very reluctant concern is that your “objective fact” is actually arguable. I would be quite surprised if, in their hearts, 51% of Muslims worldwide supported terrorism—but I wouldn’t be astounded to the point of questioning my sanity.

“ Yours is an ancient attitude…is incapable of seeing individuals, but rather uniform groups. It’s easier, certainly, than weighing the character of individuals, but it’s no less inaccurate or destructive.“

You know what, you and “demize” can piss off if you’re just going to ignore what I’ve written and accuse me of bigotry.

I’ve done business with Muslims on a daily basis. In the 90s, my wife managed a store adjacent to a young man from Bangladesh who was very assimilated. He has since expanded and done quite well. My family has had social relationships with Muslims, from dinner parties and birthdays to my daughter going to a slumber party at a Muslim family’s house. Out of all of those people, only two out of dozens have ever given me pause. One for saying things like, “Hitler didn’t go far enough.” Another for having propaganda material to teach to children of Muslim Americans, who did a piss-poor job of concealing his happiness on 9/11.

I believe in the power of American culture to convert immigrants from third world countries and their descendants to a more enlightened viewpoint. I’d say that the vast majority of Muslims living in the US oppose terrorism, because of that cultural influence. If people living here do approve of Islamic terrorism, they are most likely to be from a few narrow groups: prison converts (Nation of Islam types), disillusioned poor who only see the worst elements of Western society (drugs, prostitution, crime), and student visas who grow up elsewhere.

Muslims living in Europe have similar influences towards enlightenment, but they have far more radicals for a variety of reasons. And, in Muslim countries, there is a wide range of education, wealth, and sophistication which correlates strongly with how enlightened the average man on the street is.

Under that definition, all armed conflict (and indeed, most diplomacy) counts as terrorism. That makes the term so broad as to be irrelevant. We already have a word for war – it’s “war.” A better definition would be something like “asymmetric total war from the weak position.”

If we use the dictionary definition of “terrorism” (the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion), carpet bombing in WWII was, objectively, terrorism.

Ask Americans if they support terrorism, and I think you’ll find the vast majority do not. If they did, where are all the American terrorists? If Americans tolerated butchering civilians, why didn’t the US just nuke every Muslim country on 9/12?

Ask Americans if they support the dictionary definition of terrorism, without using the word “terrorism,” and I think it’s been demonstrated that the majority do. They certainly love Ronald Reagan, whose support of terrorists was as determined as it was documented. And Americans most certainly do tolerate the butchering of civilians, so long as they’re not American. That’s why things like this:

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/rawagallery.php?mghash=a69ba84843a6c778938bd59b65a08f63&mggal=6

and this:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/closeread/2011/03/nine-boys-and-a-war.html

…happen on a regular basis. If our government even once implemented a policy that resulted in the predictable violent deaths of U.S. civilians, it would be stopped immediately. Overseas, however, it continues unabated.

In the last 10 years, the U.S. and its western allies have killed thousands of civilians, as well. I know that they weren’t intentional, but they were thoroughly avoidable. If your loved one is killed intentionally or by a repeat drunk driver, it matters little. Dead is dead, and that’s how we should measure the damage done.

I still don’t quite know what you mean by a “not insignificant minority” of Muslims. Does that mean, “enough to commit an act of terrorism?” Does that mean that in the U.S. such a “not insignificant minority” doesn’t exist? Or does that mean that because a few dull individuals were stopped before they could commit acts of terrorism, that the U.S. is in the same amount of danger as England, Spain, etc.?

And to me, “moral relativism,” is the idea that Muslim children violently killed by drones on a regular basis are less worthy of outrage and mourning than European children who are violently killed in an isolated incident. “Moral relativism” is, to me, treating the lives of foreign civilians as if they are inherently less valuable than the lives of U.S. soldiers.

And considering the humanitarian and civil rights violations committed by our government every day, I have no idea what “Western values” are anymore.