May 23, 2007
What you figure out when you poll American MuslimsReligion
Wednesday morning’s USA Today features a survey of the attitudes of Muslim Americans toward “extremism,” probably to show how such attitudes contrast with the views of Muslims in Europe and elsewhere. The subtext of the survey seemed to be an exploration of the likelihood of homegrown terrorists within the U.S.:
The USA’s estimated 2.4 million Muslims hold more moderate political views than Muslims elsewhere in the world and are mostly middle class and willing to adopt the American way of life, according to one of the most comprehensive surveys of this segment of the nation’s population.
The Pew Research Center study released Tuesday found that “Muslim Americans are very much like the rest of the country,” says Luis Lugo, director of the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. “They do not see a conflict between being a devout Muslim and living in a modern society.”
Muslim Americans, however, have a much more negative view about the Iraq war and the war against terrorism than the U.S. public as a whole, the survey found. The study also found pockets of sympathy for Islamic extremism, especially among younger people. Muslims between the ages of 18 and 29 express significantly greater acceptance than older people of suicide bombings in some cases.
The young show a greater tendency to identify themselves as Muslim first and American second. This faith-first pattern is even more pronounced among Muslims in Europe, according to previous Pew surveys. [Link]
The trend that suggests that Muslims in America are willing to adopt the American way of life is something that I expected. We’ve often discussed here on SM that assimilation is stressed within the immigrant population of the U.S., far more than elsewhere. The fact that Muslims between the ages of 18 and 29 show a greater acceptance of suicide bombing doesn’t surprise me either. If you had given the same survey to members of any other religion I am sure the acceptance of suicide bombing would correlate with age. We live in a world where extreme violence is commonplace, and the youngest among us will therefore accept such violence more readily than the older generations. However, the last highlighted finding above did surprise me as I have personally not encountered such an attitude. Then, as I read just a few sentences further, everything was put into perspective:
Previous Pew surveys show that 42% of Christians identify with their religion before their country. Among white evangelicals, 62% say they identify themselves first as Christians. [Link]
So Evangelical Christians in America (who are more likely to have been born in America) are more likely than Muslims to put their faith before their country? That’s food for thought. The final finding in the study is also a trend that we’ve discussed on SM before. African American Muslims (particularly those with a prison record) are more likely to accept extremism.
The poll found that African-Americans are the most disillusioned segment of the Muslim American population, a possible reflection of their economic conditions and experience with racial discrimination. [Link]
So maybe what this survey has really found is that people that live under poor economic conditions and face racial discrimination are more likely to be accepting of violence as a means to change their ends. Did we really need to poll Muslims in America to figure that out?
abhi on May 23, 2007 11:45 PM in Issues, News, Religion · T·r·a·c·k·b·a·c·k address · Direct link · Email post
So Evangelical Christians in America (who are more likely to have been born in America) are more likely than Muslims to put their faith before their country? That’s food for thought.
but, to some extent evangelical christians see patriotism in the USofA as coterminous with their religiosity. in other words, so long as the united states is a christian nation, or "the chosen nation," or, "the city set upon the hill," then there is no major conflict and you can elide the underlying tension. this has a historical precedent. in the 3rd century christianity was a counter-cultural sect which operationally set up a state within a state (the roman empire). the roman persecutions, especially the one implemented by diocletian in the early 4th century, had as much to do with the perception that the christians were anti-patriotic (and that their denigration of the state cults was bringing down disfavor from the gods) as any specific religious difference. when christianity slowly became the state religion of the roman empire in the 4th century the church fathers reformulated their relationship with the roman empire, instead of the kingdom of the anti-christ, rome was the one true empire whose political existence served to facilitate the spread of the one true religion. to be a good christian one now had to be subservient to the christian emperor, the vice-reagent of god.
muslims in the USofA will no doubt reformulate and struggle with how their faith relates to their patriotism.
So maybe what this survey has really found is that people that live under poor economic conditions and face racial discrimination are more likely to be accepting of violence as a means to change their ends. Did we really need to poll Muslims in America to figure that out?
it is always to get quantitative data to firm up our perceptions. additionally, it should tell us that the source of violence may not be the dusky brown man, but the angry black man. converts are over-represented in the salafist terrorist network in europe. the nature of converting to a religion which is perceived to be somewhat alien to the landscape of your natal nation does alter the calculus of priors when making an assessment of a person.
also, re: poor & discrimination, there is a non-trivial amount of data that radical terrorism (religious and political) is disproportionately represented in the upwardly mobile bourgeois, not the underclass.
The fact that Muslims between the ages of 18 and 29 show a greater acceptance of suicide bombing doesn’t surprise me either. If you had given the same survey to members of any other religion I am sure the acceptance of suicide bombing would correlate with age.
perhaps. but the proportion who would favor suicide bombing would likely be much lower. there seems to be a "meme" in regards to suicide bombing which has become very popular amongst young muslims. after 9-11 when 60 minutes interviewed students at a muslim school in lower manhattan all the students talked about how great it would be to become martyrs and get killed fighting israelis. there was an addendum because some of the school administrators and parents freaked out at what their kids had said had them qualify and clarify their assertions a great deal.
for the science types. basically i think the issue here is that evangelical xtians look at the 'christian' and 'american' vectors as the same, so they don't see a problem ascribing a bigger magnitude to the 'christian' vector. some muslims, like my friend aziz poonwalla, assert that the USofA is the 'most muslim nation' because it allows muslims religious freedom. in this case saying that one places more importance on islam than being american is somewhat similar, because the interests of the two align. in contrast, if someone perceives a tension between their religion and their nationality (e.g., when german catholics fought under prussian protestant officers against austrian [german] catholics during the austro-prussian war), then even a balance between religion & patriotism might be problematic. so, basically this is practical insofar as if young muslims have a perception of islam that is more amenable to the 'american way' than older muslims, then their greater emphasis on islam vs. america is irrelevant since the two components add together. similarly, someone who was of a religion which they believed to be fundamentally anti-american would be problematic even if they placed america before their religion, because that counter-posing force would be there.
Thanks for posting this Abhi- I've been thinking about this survey all day - in particular HijabMan had a great blog post on how the data is being framed in the media...
[HijabMan's Blog]Razib? Three comments in a row? Seriously?
Taz, if you're a scientist type, I think the the vector for Razib's buttons has a large projection onto the description vector for this post.
Razib? Three comments in a row? Seriously?
i like to bombard posts with early comments if i can. it is a way to influence direction pretty easily for a while before it devolves into moornam vs. spoorlam ;-)
Razib, intense. I think my eyes bled a little. x_x Not really with you on the "angry black man" characterization, though.
Taz, >:(
And thanks for this, Abhi!
oh, i notice abhi didn't post the original report:
http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf
the whole thing is worth reading, and much more informative than the USA Today piece.
No, what it's meant to do is reinforce the islam-o-fobia. If you repeat that Islam is inherently a violent religion the meme continues to settles in, and even if, similar aspects are seen in other religions; or, especially, those in the US don't really matter because the people that talk seroiusly on the TV don't really care to evaluate the information, nor question those talking about it;
No, what it's meant to do is reinforce the islam-o-fobia.
yes, pew is all about the anti-muslim propoganda!
"The USA’s estimated 2.4 million Muslims hold more moderate political views than Muslims elsewhere in the world and are mostly middle class and willing to adopt the American way of life"
What is the American way of life, sticking 30 flags outside your house and car and still be treated like shit??
What is the American way of life, sticking 30 flags outside your house and car and still be treated like shit??
the linked PDF has details about how much "shit" muslims have to deal with in the USofA. i assume you read that?
what linked PDF?
the full report which the USA today story is based on is here:
http://pewresearch.org/assets/pdf/muslim-americans.pdf
there's lots of data.
sorry mate, got it now, no not read it.
*shrug* cool. i read the whole thing yesterday, it is a quick read. the USA today piece is...a USA today piece. i suspect if the conversation is based on the USA today piece it'll pretty quickly separate into muslims-are-nuts vs. islamophobia-is-bad, there just isn't much in USA today that can modulate or influence preconceptions (as abhi implied by his last comment about the necessity of the poll). in contrast, there is a lot of data, some which might might surprise, in the original survey that the article is based on. for example, i was surprised by the fact that amongst immigrant muslims middle easterners now seem to substantially outnumber south asians. i suspect the reason behind this is the latest wave of post-1990 immigrants skew this way, while pre-1990 waves had more south asians in the mix and so community organizations reflect those numbers (look at the data on CAIR's website). for me the most interesting part started on page 57:
Asked whether they believe groups of Arabs carried out the attacks against the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, 40% of Muslim Americans say yes, while 28% say they do not believe this, and about a third (32%) say they do not know or decline to answer the question.
I'm not convinced the youth being more amenable to suicide bombers has so much to do with our generation being more exposed to violence in the media, etc... I'd imagine in all points in history younger people would be more prone to that type of extremism or more prone to sympathize with it. I feel like it's more a function of age and experience and life. Would be interesting if there were a study on that from like 75 years ago...
when you're young it's easier to abstractify things
Deepal's comments reminded me of this fascinating Resnais film, La Guerre est finie. It is about the midlife crisis and dilemmas of a revolutionary Spanish communist who's fighting against Franco's regime. There is a great passage towards the end where the impatient youth talk about adopting more violent methods as a contrast to the ineffectual philosophizing of the older revolutionaries.
when the humanbeing came to birth he was neither christian, nor muslim , nor hindu. But the people mind made hinfu , muslim, christian.Which result today violence we forget that we are all of same creature animals.
Today every muslim 1 in 4 became sucide bomber because of unemployment and small samll issue which result in vilonce. They forget their birth and try ot save their reliogion but never tried to save all religionbecause noe the people becoming selfish.
Today every muslim 1 in 4 became sucide bomber because of unemployment and small samll issue which result in vilonce.
bro, made up statistics are worse than no statistics ;-)
My statement was purely based on American Muslim friends have said to me. But I guess with any singled out community it is the same; they have to go that extra distance to show that they are American, what ever that may be.
The PDF stats on Muslims in America’s take on the Israeli Palestine issue are interesting especially in contrast to the views of Muslims in morocco Jordon and Palestine. Seeing as this issue has been the reason, (according to bombers them selves, e.g. one of the July 7th bombers in London used this reason for his attack) for terrorist attacks.
Regarding Muslims in Europe (France in this case), they deal with racism, isolation, etc,. Not sure what the South Asian Muslim pop. there. French hip-hop groups rap about issues facing not only Muslims, but immigrants in France:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Me7kPr8HdJw (Sniper - politics)
http://youtube.com/watch?v=FbQizbwywJU (French Eminem)
Interesting to see how Sarkozy tackles the immigration issue there (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/worldnews.html?in_article_id=453227&in_page_id=1811).
Ok no more about immigrants and France :)
Patent nonsense. What proportion of muslim suicide bombers do you imagine have been "angry black" converts to Islam?
The evangelical crackpots can claim that the american republic is based on christianity till they are blue in the face, and your silly muslim friend can imagine that America is the most muslim nation of all, but these are just delusions. It wont change the fact that America was founded on rational, secular principles by men who were children of the Enlightenment. Most of the biggest names among the Founders had rejected christianity in favor of Deism. Many others were Unitarians who rejected the core christian concepts of Trinity and salvation through blood sacrifice.
I read the Pew report, and have read their reports on evangelicals for about five years now (work-related) - encourage everyone to have a look at all the surveys on Americans, religion and politics, particularly attitudes as they've evolved post 9/11. I'm always surprised at the rather low level of awareness about evangelical Christian attitudes even after Bush's election and the attention paid to values-voters. While evangelicals are far from homogenous politically, there are some interesting comparisons to be made between their attitudes and those of Islamists, particularly when you look at figures for survey questions like "do you believe that the Bible or human-made laws should have more influence in American politics."
In this latest survey, even the percentage of young Muslims that respond that they believe suicide bombings are sometimes or often justified against the enemies of Islam (that's how the question was phrased in the survey, btw), is pretty low, much lower than a comparable recent survey for British Muslims, and IIRC, lower than the percentage of Americans who usually respond "yes" to polls asking if they believe civilian deaths are justifiable in larger just wars (again, look at Pew and Gallup data).
The survey also shows that American Muslims are far better off and better educated than British Muslims, on average, and that, to me, is an important point with reference to disenchantment and radicalism.
The country's first two presidents, George Washington and John Adams,
were firm believers in the importance of religion for republican government." --official Library of Congress statement
"...both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate
for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity."--official Library of Congress statement
John Adams and John Hancock: We Recognize No Sovereign but God, and no King but Jesus! [April 18, 1775]
John Adams:“ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
“[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of
devotion to God Almighty.”
–John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions
unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798
"I have examined all religions, as well as my narrow sphere, my straightened means, and
my busy life, would allow; and the result is that the Bible is the best Book in the world. It contains more philosophy than all the libraries I have seen." December 25, 1813 letter to Thomas Jefferson
"Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite
Company, I mean Hell." [John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, April 19, 1817
Samuel Adams “ He who made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all… Our forefathers opened the Bible to all.” [ "American Independence," August 1, 1776.Speech delivered at the State House in Philadelphia]
“ Let divines and philosophers, statesmen and patriots, unite their endeavors to renovate the age by impressing the minds of men with the importance of educating their little boys and girls, inculcating in the minds of youth the fear and love of the Deity… and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system.” [October 4, 1790]
John Quincy Adams:
• “Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?" “Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity"?
--1837, at the age of 69, when he delivered a Fourth of July speech at Newburyport,
Massachusetts.
“The Law given from Sinai [The Ten Commandments] was a civil and municipal as well
as a moral and religious code.” John Quincy Adams. Letters to his son. p. 61
Elias Boudinot: “ Be religiously careful in our choice of all public officers . . . and judge of the tree by its fruits.”
Charles Carroll - signer of the Declaration of Independence " Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."
[Source: To James McHenry on November 4, 1800.]
Benjamin Franklin:“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel” –Constitutional Convention of 1787
“In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had
daily prayers in this room for Divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered… do we imagine we no longer need His assistance?”
[Constitutional Convention, Thursday June 28, 1787]
In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he
insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others,
ancient or modern."
In 1787 when Franklin helped found Benjamin Franklin University, it was dedicated as
"a nursery of religion and learning, built on Christ, the Cornerstone."
Alexander Hamilton:
• Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional
Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America
great:
(1) Christianity
(2) a Constitution formed under Christianity.
“The Christian Constitutional Society, its object is first: The support of the Christian
religion. Second: The support of the United States.”
On July 12, 1804 at his death, Hamilton said, “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of
the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.”
"For my own part, I sincerely esteem it [the Constitution] a system which without the
finger of God, never could have been suggested and agreed upon by such a diversity of
interests." [1787 after the Constitutional Convention]
"I have carefully examined the evidences of the Christian religion, and if I was sitting as a juror upon its authenticity I would unhesitatingly give my verdict in its favor. I can prove its truth as clearly as any proposition ever submitted to the mind of man."
John Hancock: “In circumstances as dark as these, it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that whilst every prudent measure should be taken to ward off the impending judgments, …at the same time all confidence must be withheld from the means we use; and reposed only on that God rules in the armies of Heaven, and without His whole blessing, the best human counsels are but foolishness… Resolved; …Thursday the 11th of May…to humble themselves before God under the heavy judgments felt and feared, to confess the sins that have deserved them, to implore the Forgiveness of all our transgressions, and a spirit of repentance and reformation …and a Blessing on the … Union of the American Colonies in Defense of their Rights [for which hitherto we desire to thank Almighty God]…That the people of Great Britain and their rulers may have their eyes opened to discern the things that shall make for the peace of the nation…for the redress of America’s many grievances, the restoration of all her invaded liberties, and their security to the latest generations.
"A Day of Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer, with a total abstinence from labor and recreation. Proclamation on April 15, 1775"
Patrick Henry:
• This is all the inheritance I can give my dear family. The religion of Christ can give them one which will make them rich indeed.”
—The Last Will and Testament of Patrick Henry
“It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by
religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”
John Jay:
“ Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.” Source: October 12, 1816. The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Henry P. Johnston, ed., (New York: Burt Franklin, 1970), Vol. IV, p. 393.
“Whether our religion permits Christians to vote for infidel rulers is a question which
merits more consideration than it seems yet to have generally received either from the
clergy or the laity. It appears to me that what the prophet said to Jehoshaphat about his attachment to Ahab ["Shouldest thou help the ungodly and love them that hate the Lord?" 2 Chronicles 19:2] affords a salutary lesson.”
The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, 1794-1826, Henry P. Johnston
Thomas Jefferson:“ The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend to all the happiness of man.”
“Of all the systems of morality, ancient or modern which have come under my
observation, none appears to me so pure as that of Jesus.”
"I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus."
“God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice cannot sleep forever.” (excerpts are inscribed on the walls of the Jefferson Memorial in the nations capital) [Source: Merrill . D. Peterson, ed., Jefferson Writings, (New York: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), Vol. IV, p. 289. From Jefferson’s Notes on the State of Virginia, Query XVIII, 1781.]
Samuel Johnston:
• “It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans (Muslims), pagans, etc., may be elected to
high offices under the government of the United States. Those who are Mahometans, or
any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President or other high office, [unless] first the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves.
[Elliot’s Debates, Vol. IV, pp 198-199, Governor Samuel Johnston, July 30, 1788 at the
North Carolina Ratifying Convention]
James Madison
“ We’ve staked our future on our ability to follow the Ten Commandments with all of our
heart.”
“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of
government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our
capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.” [1778 to
the General Assembly of the State of Virginia]
• I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and manly, than for men who
occupy the most honorable and gainful departments and [who] are rising in reputation
and wealth, publicly to declare the unsatisfactoriness [of temportal enjoyments] by
becoming fervent advocates in the cause of Christ; and I wish you may give in your
evidence in this way.
Letter by Madison to William Bradford (September 25, 1773)
• In 1812, President Madison signed a federal bill which economically aided the Bible
Society of Philadelphia in its goal of the mass distribution of the Bible.
“ An Act for the relief of the Bible Society of Philadelphia” Approved February 2, 1813
by Congress “It is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.”
More at
http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm
A propos of my last comment, see p. 12 of this survey of Americans and Iranians, which asks whether attacks/bombings of civilians can ever be justified (this is the latest American poll I've seen) and compare with the numbers in the Pew survey, pp. 10-12. In the first survey, a total of 24% of Americans respond that attacks intentionally aimed at civilians are sometimes (19%) or often (5%) justified, compared with 8% of Muslim Americans vs 15% of under-30 Muslim Americans in the Pew saying suicide attacks were sometimes of often justified. Oddly, about 13% of Americans in the PIPA survey said that Palestinian attacks against Israeli civilians were justifiable, which puts Muslim Americans within the American mainstream on the question.
I happen to think even 5% support for intentional attacks on civilians is too much (even if every society has its violent nutters), but perspective and comparison are good things.
It wont change the fact that America was founded on rational, secular principles by men who were children of the Enlightenment.
Nonsense. Several of the so-called Founding Fathers were slaveholders. Jefferson considered blacks to be inferior beings - both in intelligence and vigor. Native Indians are called "savages" in some founding documents. Women and blacks got nowhere near the vote for 100s of years after the republic had existed. All men are created equal clearly applied to white men only. Enlightenment indeed ...
Razib,
Whoa man! I am really curious with regards to the source of your anger. Are you from a muslim background??
I think the survey is very accurate. While there is sympathy for the muslim terrorist agenda, muslims by and large reject terrorism. There are minority pockets in Islam that are pro-terrorism, but that exists in any group. Ku Klux Clan for rednecks, Northern Ireland Separists, the RSS in India, Tamils in Sri Lanka.
Terrorism in Islam is more highlighted because of two factors. A) They have proven capability. They have effectively destroyed and challenged the concept of invincibility America, and other western countries have had. B) Muslims by and large have been on the receiving end of American foreign policy agenda, be it for whatever reason. Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Palestine being prominent examples. The combined pop affected in these areas is massive. I can assure you there will be more terrorism in the future thanks to Iraq. America keeps on creating enemies for itself.
What I want to highlight and something that many people in this thread have missed out, ISLAM is not a terrorist religion. Terrorism in Islam is a direct reaction to American foreign policy! And I can assure you the world will keep on getting polarized until Americans accept this
I'm not sure I agree with this statement. Take a look at France and Germany. I would say that there's at least the same amount of "encouragement" in those countries for immigrant populations to abandon native traditions.
Yes and no. You have a strong statist push to secularism and the abandonment of the cultural symbols of religion in France, but you also have the CFCM which is an officially-appointed representative organ for French Muslims (with ties to Moroccan state religious authorities) and similar corporatist groups for different religions that are treated by the state as the voice for all Muslims, thereby incentivizing the politicization and maintenance of the religious identity of immigrants (see Olivier Roy's Globalized Islam on this); in Germany, it wasn't till Schroeder's govt that Turkish migrants' children born on German soil could be citizens by virtue of jus soli. There has arguably been a lot of rhetoric but not much policy or institutional incentive for assimilation. Most importantly, the class background and historical animosities (former colonial ones, mainly) of Muslims in Europe vis a vis the French and German govts make for a very different relationship with political authority and assimilation. Muslim migrants to the US tend to be better off and not have that baggage.
This might be of interest:
Glenn Greenwald in Salon, showing how PEW found out that more Americans than Iranians support bombing of civilians [and how the number of American Muslims supporting attacks on civilians is lower than the number of Americans supporting the same].
but, to some extent evangelical christians see patriotism in the USofA as coterminous with their religiosity. in other words, so long as the united states is a christian nation, or "the chosen nation," or, "the city set upon the hill," then there is no major conflict and you can elide the underlying tension.
Fair enough. However there is a strain in the christian evangelical community which believes that 'America' has been taken over by liberal judges, ACLU, Hollywood etc. and America might be quite alien and not synonymous with their christianity.
@10 Razib, I didn't mention Pew and so your assumption is wrong. Rather, it's the article, and those who will take the survey to spin it.
@30 Ba wrote
Yes, he is; His family is originally from Bengladesh if I remember correctly. And if you go back through some of gnxp history (unless he erased it) you will find many screed's against Bengladesh and Muslims.
That last finding is not so surprising, Nor is it necessarily exclusive to Muslims. For instance, I grew up in a predominantly Jewish area, and I would say that many Jewish Americans also tend to identify themselves first with their faith and then with America. This is esp. highlighted in their views on the Israel-Palestine conflict. I guess when it is coupled with such prevalent terrorism by some Muslim factions, this seems to be more cause for concern to the American media.
I had a quick question about suicide bombing (I have not read the poll and don't have the time to now); is the question about suicide terrorism (i.e. targeting of civilians), or suicide bombing in general (which would entail military targets)? If it is the latter, then I am personally surprised that more people did not support it, since then it is hardly separable from military conflict, i.e. war. My personal loathing for organized group conflict/mutual murder notwithstanding, it should hardly be scandalous that people who would support wars in some cases will also tend to support certain tactics of waging it.
@Taz #4:
"
Take a look at the following two headlines, the first from the BBC, the later from the AP:
Muslims ‘well integrated’ in US
vs
Some U.S. Muslims approve suicide strikes
Two very different headlines for the same story. "
- Exactly what I noticed, both originating from exactly the same survey ! While BBC decided to highlight the fact that '80% Muslims disapprove of suicide bombing' , most American media decided to say '20% Muslims approve suicide bombing'. This kind of slanted journalism will really get Americans nowhere in terms of understanding what the problem is. You can't just keep screaming 'kill em terrorists' all decade long without trying to understand your own policies first. I hope you guys watched Ron Paul in the Republican debate .. he seemed to have the clearest idea amongst them.
As for the survey, I don't think it has offered anything new - to the rest of the world, via BBC , we know that most Muslims do not approve of suicide bombings . And to America , they got what they wanted to hear as well - that some portion of them DO approve. If anything, the survey has served to polarize the world and America once again.
@38
If the point of the study is at some subliminal level to look at the likelihood of homegrown terror, I don't see why the American headline is objectionable. Of course, a better headline would be "X% of American Muslims and Y% of Evangelicals believe that suicide bombing/moral equivalent is Ok"
prema/macacaroach, you insult and offend me! you also have the low IQ tendency of conflating assertion with substantiation (e.g., "nonsense!" in lieu of substantiation). of course, people aren't aware of your tactics and so you keep baiting them into responding.
as for islam, yeah, i don't like it. i think religion in general is pretty stupid, but as long as it's harmless i don't care. i obviously don't think islam is harmless (as some don't think evangelical christianity is harmless, something i'm willing to go along with).
Terrorism in Islam is a direct response to American foreign policy
Yeah, it easier to blame everything on the United States.
@39 -
First of all, with the hostile muslim climate here in the US, EVERY muslim is considered a home-grown terrorist in the eyes of the public, in security matters, and so on. The fact that '80% of these people' do NOT sympathize with suicide bombers could have been used to reduce some of the harassment, and reduce some of the hostility.... Instead, they have just fueled the resentment by using the 20% against them.... What results is that ALL muslims are going to continue to be considered home-grown terrorists , just like before .. and the survey has essentially done nothing.
However there is a strain in the christian evangelical community which believes that 'America' has been taken over by liberal judges, ACLU, Hollywood etc. and America might be quite alien and not synonymous with their christianity.
but you know they don't define ACLU-america as america. like most religion they're masters at semantical redefinition to rationalize make consistent their core principles. what is sophistry to you is natural to them (substitute x, y, z).
Most of the biggest names among the Founders had rejected christianity in favor of Deism. Many others were Unitarians who rejected the core christian concepts of Trinity and salvation through blood sacrifice.
john & abigail adams thought that the athanasian formula of the trinity was a magical-pagan debasement of orthodox christianity. such nonsense, you omit and elide!
Terrorism in Islam is a direct response to American foreign policy
probably more correct to say policy. most islamic terrorism has been directed at muslim populations and muslim governments.
@clueless 41: Yeah, it is easier to blame everything on the United States.
I see a long debate in the making here . A classic left vs. right one ... but since it has already started, let me contribute: It is not a *co-incidence* that the 'evil guys we now know as terrorists' chose the WTC for their attacks and not the towers of Malaysia, or the great wall of China, or the Pyramids. There is a reason behind this hatred towards the United States, and if you refuse to understand this, then the country will continue to go in exactly the same direction we are going right now - Attacking countries like Iraq and sending Tax payer's money to re-construct Baghdad instead of New Orleans...
What struck me right off the bat about the Pew survey is the estimate of the number of Muslims at 2.3-2.4 m. Muslim activists have been claiming it's much larger than that, some said 2% or 6m! This puts them just ahead of Hindus, a good conservative estimate for which is 1.7m --70% of Indian immigrants (2.3m according to 2005 interim census data) =1.6m + 100k Bangladeshi Hindus + Carribean immigrant Hindus + American converts.
continuing @41 -
... btw I'm not saying that American Foreign policy is the *only* reason extremism in Islam was born ... I'm saying it is fueling the fire at an exponential rate
Suicide bombing is, in any case, morally indefensible. How about 'collateral damage'? i.e. innocent swarthy people killed during 'security' operations. I feel, without empirical basis to be sure, that more Evangelical christians would have no problem with the odd 100,000 darkies kicking the bucket if it means that the end-times are hastened. It would be interesting to see how much of America, especially the Evangelistic population, support such actions.
Placing religion before national identification might seem to serve some moral imperatives (feed/succor the poor) with regards to immigration but it can also act as motivation to violate established law regarding abortion, the killing of abortion providers, the ability to proselytize to a captive audience, etc. Why is no one worried about that?
Are you saying that suicide bombing against civilians is morally indefensible, or suicide bombing per se indefensible (even in war). If its the latter, what causes you to oppose this particular tactic of waging war? Again, your point is sound if you have a general loathing for organized mutual murder (i.e. war), but if you think that war is justified in some cases, what causes you to oppose this particular tactic of war? BTW, don't take this the wrong way; The question is not personally directed at you per se, but I have used the second person since I quoted you above (you can replace evey "you" in the statement above with "one").
Muslim activists have been claiming it's much larger than that, some said 2% or 6m!
6 million is way too high. Around 2.2-2.5 million is probably right.
Clueless, @41
My argument was substantiated with facts
Razib @40
You don't like Islam because there a muslim terrorists. How come your ok with all the atheistic / Christian terrorists? You obviously are convinced that America fights "legitimate" wars and Al-Qaeda are terrorists. The only difference being that America uses missiles and sophisticated weaponry to target their enemies, while AL-Qaeda uses suicide bombers and ground rifles.
The idea is to collectively reject all forms of terrorism. Not to pinpoint and scapegoat one to legitimize another.
America is a terrorist state. Its the only country to have used nuclear arms. The amount of killing America is responsible for = Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, Gulf War, Afghanistan, Palestine, Japan. Its shocking.
It just pisses me off that they get away with it. It frustrates me that they are still considered to be victims and that educated open minded readers of this blog don't accept that.
America is a terrorist state
So how many of Sepia Mutiny readers agree with this?
So Evangelical Christians in America (who are more likely to have been born in America) are more likely than Muslims to put their faith before their country? Thats food for thought
I think you're right @34--- I attend an Evangelical Church in the US and now the UK--- my impression that the multiculturalism that's so prominentin the UK and becoming more'visible' to Americans + the strident secular anti religious voices such as David Dawkins Dawkins,Christopher Hawkins etc will increasingly cause more [Americans] to identify by their faith vs nationality. [I would put the latter as a bigger reason in the US,vs.multiculturalism]
The current issue of The American Interest- breaks down 'Muslims' into three schools- Holy war and Conquest leaders' jihad, 'Reason and Propagation' Muslim brotherhood, and the Traditionalist/quietistist-according tothe author Amir Taheri- strongest amongst the Shi'a who believe that the first two groups have made Islam unnecessarily political. Finally outside of those three groups- the 'Muslim' secularilist-- who "experience Islam as a civilization more than a religious Faith.", and don't want to meld into a "Christological" Western culture.
The article pointed out the weakness in Western--[IMV American] media in characterizing Islam as a monolith. The social development of "Islamic Banking" insurance, loans, stock exchanges etc. in contrast /spite of 'historical' strictures on ursury etc is telling. Taheri points out that a lack of a central authority- has allowed the adaptation of pragmatic approaches to 'scientific' issue (invitro fertilization etc).
As far as African American conversion to Islam-- I'm sure that is complicated by historical& current factors in America regarding SES, as well as a misguided view that some external really 'other' *'brotherhood' will give you an identity ,sense of belonging that's an upgrade from being just 'black' in America, or the UK. *That said with knowledge of the caste,ethnic, tensions etc between 'brown Muslims' much more so towards those of Afro descent. Where ever you go... there you are.
@51 Ba I'm not sure you conflate what @40 Razib said
as an endorsement of
However, people have their biases and Razib reconfirmed his bias of disliking Islam in general more so than other religions.
Yeah, because of some of my past experiences I have had, I hate do it, but I agree with that statement..
Americans let my brother become a surgeon, yet they did not let me study at even a community college !
@Ba - "The idea is to collectively reject all forms of terrorism. Not to pinpoint and scapegoat one to legitimize another."
This is my understanding of the issue :
There is a difference between killing soldiers and killing civilians. When the WTC was brought down, that was terrorism because unarmed civilians died ... When suicide bombs are used to kill SOLDIERS in war, I would call that 'fair' , and would rather call it a certain mode of warfare, like maybe 'guerilla warfare' . Instead of tossing the bomb, they deliver it in person. That's not terrorism. That's warfare.
Al-Qaeda has specialized in killing civilians - And is thus a terrorist outfit. Armies of nations, however, *intend* at least, to kill SOLDIERs of the opposing faction . Civilians are off-limits here. So I would not call an 'Army' a terrorist outfit.
Hiroshima/Nagasaki was absolutely unfair and can be classified a terrorist act, as millions of civilians died there.
I don't know Clueless what with all the hip-hop fyi;that's American and whatnot- being exported to other communities- destroying their otherwise pristine morals, I supposte the question must be asked.
@55 - 'Americans let my brother become a surgeon, yet they did not let me study at even a community college !'
That's why America is a terrorist state ? Wow
.. i really hope you were being sarcastic
No, I'm not being sarcastic.. I'm serious.. My brother ended up becoming a surgeon, and I ended up being harassed out of a community college..
what does that have to do with america being a terrorist state? "they hurt me. they are terrorists"????
Well I think they used me being an alleged terrorist to harass me out of the college.. But I'm not sure, it could have been for a number of other reasons also..
But that is what terrorists do, they hurt innocent peoples !
"they" are not america. just some americans. they do not represent the state, to call it a "terrorist state" also. if i pull someones hair im not a terrorist. althought the arguement can be made. that is not the arguement.
Interesting indeed. From the Zogby poll numbers and other numbers frequently cited at sites such as democratic underground, 9/11truth, I would have guessed higher skepticism among muslims. Although so much depends on the exact phrasing of questions and that varies a lot. These numbers are probably not very different from national numbers and that is probably a good thing.
Has someone redefined "comment" while i wasn't looking?
@ Randomizer
America Kills civilians. Hasn't Iraq been an example enough ... there is a count somewhere on the net how many civilians have been killed.
But I can give a personal example. I live in Karachi, my driver hails from NWFP and is Pakhtoon / Pathan (Pakhtoons are generally big in transport). While on holiday to his village in NWFP, the US fired a tomahawk missile (this is something like 4 - 5 months back) onto a house a qtr of a mile from his. Apparently some Al-Qaeda operative was staying there (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0118-04.htm). His cousins something (I forget the relation) was amongst those who were killed. He came back home furious ... he hates America, would sign up for Al-Qaeda at even a hint of a chance. He is uneducated and generally uninformed, as far as he is concerned America tried to kill his tribe and he hates them. Just for arguments sake, had America spent its billions, developing the are, won't the area not be antagonistic towards America??
America is a terrorist state. Period. And I have lived in America, we were in Miami, Americans are not terrorists like muslims aren't, but American foreign policy is terrorism oriented. The sooner people accept this the better.
But I can give a personal example. I live in Karachi, my driver hails from NWFP and is Pakhtoon / Pathan (Pakhtoons are generally big in transport). While on holiday to his village in NWFP, the US fired a tomahawk missile (this is something like 4 - 5 months back) onto a house a qtr of a mile from his. Apparently some Al-Qaeda operative was staying there (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0118-04.htm). His cousins something (I forget the relation) was amongst those who were killed. He came back home furious ... he hates America, would sign up for Al-Qaeda at even a hint of a chance. He is uneducated and generally uninformed, as far as he is concerned America tried to kill his tribe and he hates them. Just for arguments sake, had America spent its billions, developing the are, won't the area not be antagonistic towards America??
America is a terrorist state. Period. And I have lived in America, we were in Miami, Americans are not terrorists like muslims aren't, but American foreign policy is terrorism oriented. The sooner people accept this the better.
We have got ourselves a terrorist generator here. Replace
Karachi - Mumbai
NWFP - Gujarat
Pathan - Gujarati
America - Pakistan
Miami - Karachi
US fired a tomahawk missile - Pakistan's ISI put bombs in buses
muslims raised in muslim societies generally should not be allowed to speak up for or try to present reasoned arguments for islam as a religion or for the foreign policy of islamic states or for the motives of terrorist and armed groups. they are usually the region's equivalent of redneck evangelicals and as such, they do not have the capabilities to enlighten us without resorting to rehashing the catchphrases of quicker-witted western thinkers and "islam is peace" inanities that became trite long years ago in the nearly six after 9/11.
none of your points have functioned as such. you have added nothing and convinced no one of whatever vague thesis you're trying to articulate. the more you write the more unanalytical you make us look, and the further you've drifted away from the topic of this thread. as in the "who's the real terrorist?" debate you're laboring to pull us all into, i am certain you, writing from pakistan, would have even less to contribute regarding the mindset of american muslims. running wild with religious emotion helps no one here.
read more dawn than the campus jamaat paper,
your muslim brother.
read more dawn than the campus jamaat paper,
your muslim brother.
The jamaat has campus newspapers now!
What does it mean to say America is a terrorist state? That it purposely kills civilians in order to forward a political agenda? Civilian casualties, so-called collateral damage (terrible term), are not purposeful; they are accidents and American soldiers take pains to minimize them. Yes, they generally do, despite horrific incidences to the contrary. *Purposefully* setting off a car-bomb in a crowded market is different than a missile that misses it's mark. Yes, I agree, the latter is sometimes minimized in our reporting, and certainly not to our credit, but how can they be the same thing? And, when those terrorists flew planes into the WTC, was it *only* to 'protest' American foreign policy? Or avenge American actions? The goals of those terrorists went beyond any tit-for-anti-imperialist-tat; they had political goals which should be anathema to anyone who supports liberalism, democracy, minority and women's rights. I'll never understand the conflation of the two.....
*Ba, there was a context to dropping the bomb. The Pacific leg of WWII was horrific. Utterly horrific. In retrospect, does that fact justify dropping the bomb? I don't know. The more I read about World War II, the more horrified I am about the sheer scope of it and the barbarity of what happened. How long would the war have lasted and how many more people would have died had the bomb not been dropped? It's not a straight-forward question and a serious point of argument for historians. As for American foreign policy; well, Germany and France supplied Saddam with weapns, India and China make deals with the Darfur regime over oil fields, the French were in Vietnam and Algeria, the Russians decimated Afghanistan. Why, then, is the US uniquely singled out for scorn? I'm not saying scorn isn't justified at times, but why one standard for the US and another for, well, everyone else?
As for this survey, well, I'll have to make like a razib and read it first, before I comment.
America is a terrorist state. Its the only country to have used nuclear arms. The amount of killing America is responsible for = Iraq, Vietnam, Korea, Gulf War, Afghanistan, Palestine, Japan. Its shocking.
I suggest you crack open a history book and learn about WWII before you start complaining about Hiroshima/Nagasaki. Specifically, you might want to read about the Battle of Okinawa. It's unfortunate, but the bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki probably saved countless JAPANESE civilian lives since it ended the war before a land invasion of Japan was necessary. The casualty predictions for a land invasion were enormous, both in terms of Japanese cilivian/military and the Allied forces. The carpet bombings of major cities during WWII resulted in many more casualities than the dropping of the bomb. While it's fashionable to condemn the dropping of the bomb and state the "America-is-the-only-state-to-have-dropped-the-bomb" sound bite, it is also overly simplistic.
With respect to Korea, did the North Koreans and Chinese have anything to do with the Korean War??! America joined the Korean War AFTER North Korea invaded the South AND after the UN voted to send troops to help the South.
WRT to the Gulf War I and Afghanistan, care to elaborate the actions that the US took to warrant the "terrorist state" designation?
I think that Iraq and Vietnam were serious mistakes, but I don't see how this justifies placing the US in the same category as Stalinist Russia or the Nazis or Iran or North Korea etc.
Nice to see america-haters taking over another thread which was supposed to be about a whole quarter of american muslims
supporting suicide bombings.
Good work chomskyites, now bugger off to DU or dailykos.
Really cool article on the subject of pluralistic ignorance here, defined as a scenario in which "“moral principles with relatively little popular support may exert considerable influence because they are mistakenly thought to represent the views of the majority, while normative imperatives actually favored by the majority may carry less weight because they are erroneously attributed to a minority.” ... "What is especially disturbing about the process is that it lends itself to control by the noisiest and most visible."
I don't want to derail the thread (if such a concept even exists at this point of the discussion) with the linked article's discussion of opinions on the Bush administration, just wanted to point out that a very similar concept might exist in the Muslim world when it comes to sympathy for suicide bombings or other extremist activities.
so 60% are flirting with something like holocaust denial. this is the underlying bigotry or ethnic chauvanism that breeds terrorism, not unlike the way racism in the general US population gave rise to the KKK. abc should've excercised their 1st ammendment rights and fired rosie when she added to the exagerrated sense of victimization these idiots feel.
@md,
i don't see the US as a terrorist state, and i find it apalling that many compare the al qaeda with US. now osama and bush--they are long lost twins, but not the alqaeda and US. however, i do think you are too much of an apologist for current actions of the US. you say:
do you think invading iraq for no reason other than oil is any different from setting a bomb in a crowded market place?
the thing is there is a legitimate grievance with the iraq war, but islamic terrorism also existed way before that. imo there is no cause and effect here---the islamic terrorists would have created reasons to kill non-muslims. the US would have cooked up reasons to get at iraqi oil. to that extent they are the same. there is one crucial difference: that one side (US) is predictable and acts to better its interests, the other side (islamic terror) is not predictable and acts not necessarily to improve its life but to kill others'.
@Rahul...thanks for that link, great article, great relevance.
So what should America do?. For example do you have anything specific to say about America's foreign policy goals..
You obviously are convinced that America fights "legitimate" wars and Al-Qaeda are terrorists.
wtf is that derived from? are you a regular reader of this weblog? or the four years of posts i've made on my various weblogs? and yes, i think al qaeda are terrorists. america fights some wars worth fighting, and some wars not worth fighting, and some wars worth fighting in a manner that makes them not worth fighting. and now we've reached the stage where america-is-all-powerful-evil and the murder of 3,000 americans is equivalent to the extermination of 6 million jews. see why i like to bombard threads early and often before the action gets good?
I think the pollsters' question about suicide bombing is far too simplistic. I was just reading an assessment of Palestinian strategy by Azmi Bashara, the leading representative of Arab citizens of Israel, which begins like this:
"I am constantly surprised at how, when the subject of Palestinian strategy is discussed, impatient questioners seek to boil the matter down to “Are you for or against suicide operations?” The reduction of the national strategy to this question exemplifies an extreme political poverty in these difficult times, which is also quite tragic."
The essay really forces one to go beyond platitudes and raises the bar for those interested in a free Palestine.
so 60% are flirting with something like holocaust denial. this is the underlying bigotry or ethnic chauvanism that breeds terrorism, not unlike the way racism in the general US population gave rise to the KKK. abc should've excercised their 1st ammendment rights and fired rosie when she added to the exagerrated sense of victimization these idiots feel.
The 60% are not denying 9-11. I dont believe Rosie denied 9-11 either though who knows. Anyway, these people are not denying 9-11 but suggesting that the culprits were not those 19 men but someone entirely different which is quite fferent from suggesting that 9-11 never happened.
First let me concede. Calling america a terrorist state is provocative and not what I intend to say or mean, as in America is not a terrorist state per se Nazi Germany. However I believe that America is responsible for terrorism through its foreign policy, both in the attack itself and in the response to the attack. Just to make this thread discussive and not argumentative I have two sets questions.
1) Will there be terrorist attacks in the US b/c of the War in Iraq? If you think so, can one consider those attacks a result of America's foreign policy? Is America's attack on Iraq terrorism? If America attacks Iran, knowing that Iran does not have nukes or the means to deliver nukes to the US, will that be an act of terrorism?
2) How related is America's foreign policy to the political will of the average American? Most people I would assume would base there voting on issues such as tax / housing / healthcare, not foreign policy. Is it hypothetically possible for a rogue candidate to satisfy the issues of tax / housing / healthcare, win the election and use America's arsenal for misguided wars? Is bush walking a tightrope here? The economy has done well under him.
These are more queries and less opinions. Tell me why my thinking is wrong, why you disagree with me? if you do at all.
' see why i like to bombard threads early and often before the action gets good'
And here I thought the reason you did that was to set a tone of somewhat rational discourse and discourage hyperbole and trumped numbers
well, most prominent holocaust deniers don't deny its existence either, just that it did not occur in the manner and to the extent that we all believe. some are not even ant-semites (they're conspiracy theorists who love to cross the establishment) but all feed anti-semitism.
rosie is not an islamic fascist, but she is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, as are apparently 60% of muslim americans.
If we had to pick one salient feature of the Holocaust deniers, it would be their scepticism as to the extent of the genocide.
I dont think the 9-11 conspiracy theorists are denying the extent of the 9-11 tragedy.
rosie is not an islamic fascist, but she is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, as are apparently 60% of muslim americans.
Who is the enemy, in your opinion?
rosie is not an islamic fascist, but she is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, as are apparently 60% of muslim americans.
By that definition, 22% of Americans, 15% of Republicans are also giving aid and comfort to the enemy.
These are more queries and less opinions. Tell me why my thinking is wrong, why you disagree with me? if you do at all.
i don't really disagree with you that much. you just assumed i did because i dislike islam.
various islamic fascists, especially those who're are looking to acquire wmds.
yes, i think much of the american public is in denial, especially since bush is a victim of his own success. i think this reflects the harshness of the democratic rhetoric, acusing bush of going to war for oil, the haiburtan smear, financial ties with saudis thru the carlyle group, etc. this is especially sad since this white house has gone out of its way to not label their political opponenets as unpatrotic.
What the heck are you yakking about?
The genius actually buys the absurdity that Unitarianism is the true orthodox christianity! That reveals your cluelessness.
Rejecting the Trinity is rejecting the Divinity of Christ and rejecting the sacrificial scheme of Salvation, which are the bedrock beliefs of orthodox Christianity whether Catholic, Protestant or Eastern Orthodox. To deny that Jesus is the Son of God is to be a heretic in the eyes of orthodox christianity. Such unorthodoxy could get you tortured and killed in pre-Enlightenment times. You apparently are unaware that it wasn't Unitarianism but Protestant Calvinism that was the religious orthodoxy/ruling theology of colonial America and that the founder of this sect, Calvin, had notoriously burned at the stake in Geneva the spanish scientist Servetus.....for his Unitarianism.
The Deist and Unitarian Founders of the American Republic were rebelling against both monarchy and christian orthodoxy. The American Constitution is a strictly secular document. It owes nothing whatsoever to the Bible.
What the heck are you yakking about?
you insult and offend with your verbal diarrhea! clean up your mess moron!
The genius actually buys the absurdity that Unitarianism is the true orthodox christianity! That reveals your cluelessness.
the moron has problems with english comprehension! john & abigail adams believed they were the orthodox christians. they believed in a jesus with supernatural powers who came from on high, they believed in life after death. that could be inferred from the english above, but the moron is semi-literate! assuming that the moron can manage the creature may find some data in The Faiths of the Founding Fathers.
as the moron has noted many a time, south asians have low IQs ;-) it is evidence #1.
You apparently are unaware that it wasn't Unitarianism but Protestant Calvinism that was the religious orthodoxy/ruling theology of colonial America and that the founder of this sect, Calvin, had notoriously burned at the stake in Geneva the spanish scientist Servetus.
and moron, did you know that except for king's chapel in boston all the historic unitarian churches in new england derive from the liberal wing of the congregationalist movement, the denominational descendant of new england calvinism? ah, but a moron didn't know that before prattling on about calvinism.
I think I smell a troll.
Delhiite, you really should get a se