Message Number: 153
From: Daniel Reeves <dreeves Æ umich.edu>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 14:05:58 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: devotion to islam linked to support of terrorism
good points!  and glad to have someone's take on it who actually read the
article.

(about subject line, yes, it was kind of meant to mock the study's
disingenuous headline)

--- \/	 FROM yvorobey Æ umich.edu AT 05.06.23 13:20 (Today)   \/ ---

> More than the number of anti-bombing mullahs.  My suspicion after reading the
> article, though, is that the correlation in Palestine is quite strong.  I do
> agree with Danny that the headline was quite misleading, as was, of
> course, his
> subject line...  The study really only focused on one indicator of private
> worship (frequency of prayers) and one indicator of public worship (frequency
> of mosque attendance). I get the impression from reading a variety of sources
> that mullahs in the PA (palestinian authority) range between
> "understanding" to
> openly supportive of terrorism, though few may actually recruit people for
it.
> The story would certainly be different in a place like Ann Arbor, though,
> again, I get the impression that there are not very many tears shed over
> innocent Israelis dying in terrorist attacks.
>
> In any case, the important distinction made in the study between public and
> private worship does make the results much clearer (and fills me with some
> optimism). Particularly, it does empirically reinforce (for me) something
I've
> already believed: that Mulsim religious leaders are a significant part of the
> problem. Of course, all the obvious qualifications of this statement
> apply. But
> it also means that if those religious leaders who oppose it become more
> outspoken and more numerous, the balance may well shift, and shift quickly.
>
> Eugene
>
> Quoting Kevin Lochner  :
>
> > how many pro-bombing mullah's would it really take to effect a positive
> > correlation?
> >
> > - kevin
> >
> >
> > "It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it."
> > -- G.W. Bush, --Reuters, May 5, 2000 (Thanks to Allison Fansler.)
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 23 Jun 2005, Erica O'Connor wrote:
> >
> >> Given that this study is even ligitimate, sounds like
> >> it found something not all that surprising, namely,
> >> sitting around the house being devout isn't as
> >> inspiring to a would-be-suicide-terrorist-supporter as
> >> going to a big religious gathering of like-minded
> >> individuals every day.
> >> -Erica
> >> Quote included to to please Daniel anyway:
> >> "Man will not be free until the last king is strangled
> >> with the entrails of the last priest."
> >> -by I forget who, Diderot?
> >>
> >>
> >> --- Daniel Reeves	 wrote:
> >>
> >> > I'm not thinking about much else but thesis for next
> >> > several weeks but
> >> > this just struck me as amusing.	My (cynical) take
> >> > is that a study linked
> >> > religiosity to terrorism and then they decided that
> >> > wasn't so PC so they
> >> > found some obscure religiosity metric that they
> >> > failed to correlate with
> >> > terrorism and used that as the headline to make it
> >> > sound like they found
> >> > the opposite of what they really found.	Or more
> >> > likely the whole study's
> >> > just BS.  Ok, I'm going back in my hole now.
> >> >
> >> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> > From: U-M News Service
> >> >	
> >> > Subject: Michigan Today NewsE - June 2005
> >> >
> >> > UofM News
> >> >
> >> > If you have trouble reading this email please visit:
> >> > http://www.umich.edu/NewsE/ June 2005
> >> >
> >> > ...
> >> >
> >> > Personal devotion to Islam is unrelated to support
> >> > for suicide bombing
> >> > among Palestinian Muslims, according to a study at
> >> > the Institute for
> >> > Social Research. But the more often Muslims attended
> >> > mosques, the more
> >> > likely they were to support suicide terrorism.
> >> > (Islamic text image, from
> >> > U-M Museum of Art.)
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>

-- 
http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/dreeves  - -  google://"Daniel Reeves"

 "The wireless music box has no imaginable commercial value. Who would
  pay for a message sent to nobody in particular?"
    -- David Sarnoff's associates in response to his urgings for
       investment in the radio in the 1920s.