The motivation for terrorism is not just ideas. It also lies in political and economic conditions in the countries where it originates, which trace back to past and present bad government. It also lies in other conflicts, such as the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Doug, much of that statement coincides with the current progressive talking point and I don't buy it.
The Saudis who took down the World Trade Center were educated and from wealthy families, and Bin Laden himself was very wealthy. We have what are misnamed "Lone Wolves" here in the US and in France, Belgium, Germany, Spain, Italy, Sweden, etc. But they aren't lone wolves, they are united by having declared allegiance to ISIS or at least to the Islamist cause. Ideas! Not political conditions, countries of origin, economic condition, bad governments, or the fact that Jews live in Israel and have an ongoing conflict with a number of Arab nations.
I would agree that it is not just ideas. It is a set of ideas that match some kind of psychological state - a long-lasting, bitter, pathological hatred. Not a rational hatred. Not a justified hatred. It is a pathological, irrational emotional state (anger, insecurity, fear, personal isolation, etc.) that pairs up with an ideology that serves as a rationale. They become chicken and egg. The hate is explained by the ideology and the ideology helps keep the hate alive, fierce and focused. Want to think of it is very simple terms? Sick people latch onto sick ideas and then engage in sick behaviors.
Religion is not the only source of the ideas in a culture. America and Britain are similar religiously, but America is significantly more violent than Britain, and has been since before significant numbers of Muslims started coming here.
Of course religion is not the only source of ideas in a culture. But historically it has been the major source of moral codes. And morality is a key motivator in taking action that involve force.
What are you referring to when you say "violent"? Individual criminal violence unrelated to terrorism? National wars using the military? Are you accounting for population differences? Have you tracked the increase in violence in all countries as their population of muslims increases? (Belgium, France, Germany, Sweden, etc.)
People are running into crowds with knives, rented trucks, semi-automatic weapons... and they have sworn allegiance to ISIS and yell "Allah Akbar" - that is an unmistakable connection between religion and violence and increases with direct proportion to the increase of Muslims in a country. Those are just simple facts.
Part of what I am arguing against is statements like Kyrel's "The vast majority of Muslims in America support the social ideals of jihad (i.e. war) and sharia (i.e. slavery)".
If Kyrel's statment had said a "significant percentage" instead of "vast majority" would that have changed your view? And isn't tens of thousands still a shocking number? And Kyrel's statement is about "support the social ideals" of jihad and sharia. It doesn't say they are active, or in agreement with all the Islamists methods. It says that more than 50% of American Muslims support jihad and sharia as social goals.
My questions are these: Why would you argue against that without some evidence that it isn't true, and doesn't that statement, if at all true, concern you? Why not?
Assuming you are here in America (with the internet one never knows), then do you consider yourself under the gun to support Islam?
I'm here in America and I don't feel like I'm under the gun to be quiet - why should anyone else? I've heard a few (very few) Muslims speak out strongly against Islamism. They clearly aren't being stopped by some implied gun? In otherwords, I'm not buying this concept of a world of good Muslims, numbering in the billions, all so frightened of being killed this alleged small number of alleged poor, mistreated young men who are supposedly just angry about Israel and/or not having a job.
All of these good people, all over the world, are so constantly frightened that they can't speak out about the kidnapping of whole villages of children for sex slaves, for mass beheadings, for blowing up innocent men women and children, for setting people on fire and other acts of insanity. I don't buy it.
You mentioned the persecution of Muslims in Myanmar. If you check you will find that the anger directed at the Muslims is not on behalf of Buddhism. It was an attack on members of a minority group done, mostly, by the military. The majority of the people in the country are Buddists - but that doesn't equate to acting on behalf of their religion, nor are they acting in ways that coincide with any Buddist writings or teachings. (Myanmar is almost 90% Buddhists and mostly Theravada - they subscribe to the teaching of Buddha as written down in the Pali Cannon - it is like their Koran. Try to find any verse in there that advocated using force on behalf of the religion - you can't do it.)
The progressives have created Fake News out events in Myanmar to make the Muslims appear to have been persecuted by "radical Buddhists" - what is needed is the other side of the issue which might have the title: "Negative Actions taken by Muslim Minority, on behalf of their religion, Against the People of Myanmar, lead to Military Action." Remember that the group of Muslims who are most often in trouble in Myanmar are those along the border of Bangladesh which was born of the violent conflict between Muslims and Hindu in India.
Bottom line: If you think that there are ideological problems with Buddhism that are leading to violence on behalf of that religion. And if you see that as being as significant as the violence carried out on on behalf of Islam... well, I'd be surprised.
Political correctness, fake news, a very liberal educational system, and a very liberal news media have left far too many people believing the lie that Islam is a religion of peace and that conservatives claim otherwise because they are caught up in a kind of emotional militarism against Islam that isn't justified.