Re: Off Topic as usual devotion to Islam is not linked to terror

It seems to me I heard somewhere that GaryG wrote in article
<raqle.16129$cP2.3788@xxxxxxxx>:

>"Don Kirkman" <donkirk@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>news:ia4c911lkv8tfijhm01gl3f2mdv2vujhrd@xxxxxxxxxx
>> It seems to me I heard somewhere that GaryG wrote in article
>> <ipmle.11995$eR.8098@xxxxxxxx>:

[Re a study on a tendency to accept or condone terrorism among
Palestinian Muslims]

>> Perhaps the relevant factor is "Palestinian," not "Muslim" or level of
>> attendance--just as Southern US fundamentalists are different from
>> traditional New England Unitarians and Congregationalists. Palestinians
>> would presumably attend mosques where the teachings reflect Palestinian
>> culture and interpretations of Islam; mosques attended by those of other
>> ethnic/cultural backgrounds could have very different people attending.

>> If I read the summary correctly, *personal devotion* is not associated
>> with acceptance of terrorism while mosque attendance[Palestinian] is. A
>> similar split between moderates and fundamentalists may well exist among
>> US Christians.

>I suspect you are correct, but I still think the author's focus on the
>"personal devotion" results has much more to do with political correctness
>than scholarship. If one is measuring "degree of devotion" or "religiosity",
>a very good case can be made for including frequency of mosque attendance in
>the criteria.

The history of religious sociology is littered with studies using vague
and inadequately considered concepts like "devotion," "religiosity,"
"belief," and the like. These and others are subjective and not easily
amenable to a tenable definition. Is "belief" the acceptance of
specific doctrines or of practicing things like meditation and prayer or
partaking in a community of like minded people or is it something else
altogether or all of the above?

>However, the authors of the study drew the conclusions they wished to draw
>by focusing on their narrow definition of "personal devotion"...defined only
>as the frequency with which one prays. It looks like they adjusted their
>criteria after the fact, to fit the results they wanted.

>From the little bit presented so far in the thread I don't know about
the "after the fact," but I'm sure willing to believe "their narrow
definition." :-)
--
Don Kirkman
.