Perhaps my word was ill chosen. What I meant was: there are terrorists; there are those who abet and shield them; and there are those who, while not cooperating materially, still applaud or justify those actions when asked about them.
Those who abet and shield terrorists I would classify as terrorists. The ones who “applaud or justify” unfortunately exist (and I would even argue that such people exist as a good sized portion of a given population dependent on where we were talking about). But, we can’t judge an entire population based on this. We can’t judge the entire population because a)we don’t know their level of “applaud or justify” b)we don’t know if their applauding and justifying is based on self interest (in Iraq I ran across a lot of Iraqis who “supported” the insurgents because if they didn’t their families would be killed) and c)because such a judgment would be counterproductive to resolving the issue (usually with a “well you people do it too” argument [see the various threads about what is going on in the CAR for examples of Christians trying to justify what is going on there])
What’s wrong with Jihad Watch?
The smiley makes me think you said this in jest. If not, we can address that site on a new thread.
The difference is that there’s no part of the Bible or Sacred Tradition that says “Go molest children”; there are several verses in the Quran and related writings about jihad and wife-beating.
Yes, but you are assuming that such teachings in Islam exist or that those who claim such teachings are correct about their claims.
10% is probably an exaggeration. The people of Germany didn’t all head to volunteer for work in Dr. Mengele’s lab, but a far larger number of them supported the Third Reich.
Did they support the Third Reich with full knowledge of what it was doing; and did they do so freely (as in they didn’t need to fear a midnight knock if they spoke out against it)? The same questions apply to Muslim populations, especially since they, unlike the Germans, usually live in a failed state in which the government can not protect itself (see Pakistan and it’s issues with access to certain part of it’s own country) let alone it’s citizens.
Non sequitur. Again, the Catholic faith does not teach that abortion is right; in fact, having or abetting an abortion is excommunicable
latae sententiae - therefore, many of those who are involved in such acts aren’t even in good standing with the Church. Every Pope who’s spoken on the issue has condemned abortion. On the other hand, I’m yet to hear any authoritative voice - except a few liberal scholars in non-Islamic countries - coming out to condemn FGM, terrorism, and the like.
-According to some Catholics it does teach that, if not right, abortion is not wrong (which is pretty much the same).
-Who exactly do you think has the authority to speak for all of Islam and for all Muslims? It hasn’t had a central authoritative voice since the death of Muhammad (Sunni Islam and Shia Islam exist as I direct result over the issue of who was the authority). Trying to find an authoritative voice for Islam is like trying to find an authoritative voice for Protestantism.
-As for Muslims not speaking out against terrorism or just “a few liberal scholars in non-Islamic countries” doing so, how hard have you looked? Google “Islamic leaders condemn terrorism”.
Your coinage, not mine. I’d prefer the Church term “material cooperation with grave evil” to refer to what you’d call “passive terrorists”. And it’s true that in most Islamic countries, the majority of the population supports - explicitly or implicitly - the values and ideals which lead to the evils above. To them, it’s not terrorism; it’s jihad, holy war against the enemy (Jews, Christians, “The West”, Hindus…)