18-24% of Americans Wrongly believe Obama is Muslim

[nirakar]

I thought a lot of people originally went to America to get away from religious fanatacism.

They were religious fanatics who wanted to get away from other religious fanatics. But that was just New England and to a lessor degree Pennsylvania. The people who went to the South just wanted to get rich.


Strange thing is that the descendants of the religious fanatics ended up being richer and less religiously fanatical than the descendants of the people who wanted to get rich.

 

[madanthonywayne]

Not to endorse Alien Cockroach's comments, but it is curious that the Pilgrims and the Puritans get all the press when it comes to the founding. First, the Puritans were were more likely to persecute other religions than anyone in England. They left England for Holland...and then left Holland because there were too many sinners there. When they came here they periodically passed laws banning many ungodly practices, like:

• skipping church
• falling asleep in church
• being a Quaker (which was punishable by death for a while)
• cursing your parents (punishable by death, though unlike the Quaker ban, not actually enforced)
• celebrating Christmas (for at least 22 years).

Sort of sounds like religious fanatics to me (which was my original point).

The rest of the country...New York and New Jersey (both originally Dutch), Delaware (Swedish, then Dutch, before the Quakers were took it over) and Virginia and the Carolinas, those were mostly settled by people interested in commerce, not those fleeing religious persecution. Georgia was somewhat of a mix. Some of the early settlers were there as an alternative to debtor's prison, some were religiously persecuted, some were there for commercial reasons.

Religious persecution in Europe was a reason for some people to move, but it strikes me as a somewhat less important reason than the national mythology sometimes makes it out to be. There's no shame in moving because you want to pursue commercial interests.

Your point is valid, of course. But it is also certainly true that religion played a large role in the founding of America and has been a major factor in US culture and politics to this day. Much more so than, say, Europe or Australia.

 

[Alien Cockroach]

Not to endorse Alien Cockroach's comments,

Why not? My sentiments are perfectly accurate. You should endorse this wholeheartedly.

Religious persecution in Europe was a reason for some people to move, but it strikes me as a somewhat less important reason than the national mythology sometimes makes it out to be. There's no shame in moving because you want to pursue commercial interests.

People's reasons for moving to the US were as diverse as the people themselves. Some of them may have been members of the Royal Navy who did a tour of duty in the New World and liked the climate. The US did not differ greatly, at its conception, from other parts of the British Empire, at least not much more than each did from the other. In fact, the people who lived during the time period weren't exactly fresh out of the Stone Age, believe it or not.

In fact, perhaps we could arrange to have the Treaty of Paris (1783) rescinded, and we can change over to a parliamentary system of government.

 

[nirakar]

Two stories I came across today show that a growing number of Americans now wrongly believe Obama to be Muslim. Time magazine reports that number to now be 24% and the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life reports it to be 18%.

What's shocking is that a year ago the number of Americans who wrongly said that Obama was Muslim stood at 11%. Just 34% of Americans now correctly identify Obama's religion as Christian, it was 48% a year ago. A plurality now say they don't know what religion he is.

Why is this significant? Well, it indicates that the president has so lost touch with the American people that they no longer even know who he is. How can he possibly convince voters to support his policy positions when he can't even accurately communicate his own identity?

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2011799,00.html

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalp...alsely-believe-president-obama-is-muslim.html​

The people who think Obama is a Muslim did not vote for Obama. Do people tell pollsters the truth about what they believe or do they just tell the pollster whatever they feel like telling the Pollster.

"Obama is a Muslim" is like a political cheer at a political football game. You don't have to believe it to say it. Of course the children and retards won't understand that cheers are just cheers and are not to be taken literally.

Obama's base is demobilized. Obama has not even tried to delivere the changes that many hoped for.

The economic mess was made by 30 years of corrupt and incompetent government. Only inflating another bubble can help the economy much in the short term.

With the economy bad and many Obama voters feeling let down by Obama the 2012 presidential election is the Republicans to lose. The only way the Republicans lose is to nominate the sort of clown that would appeal to the people who don't want to believe that Obama is a Christian. But the Republicans will probably nominate exactly that sort of person and that will remobilize the Obama voters not because they like Obama but because they are horrified at who the Republicans have chosen to be their nominee. If the Republicans nominate somebody mediocre they will win easily but if they nominate somebody the "Obama is a Muslim" crowd likes then they might lose. Republicans could also lose with a lets invade Iran guy or an inflexible ultraChristian or somebody too overtly tainted by Wall Street or somebody who sounds too much like Alien Cockroach and overplays the demonize Obama hand too the point that he justs makes himself sound stupid.

 

[iceaura]

In this particular case, I think the reason for the confusion is that Obama does not communicate anything about his religion.

Obama has "communicated", from his end, a great deal about his religion.

During the campaign in 2008, for example, Obama "communicated" far more about his religion - under intense scrutiny, it was - than any other major candidate including Romney.

At that time, his Christian denomination was a major topic of inquiry, and his long time customary Christian Church was much publicized. For all we know it's simply forgetting that - the faction most commonly wedded to the more bizarre "errors", including this one, has a notoriously short memory and attention span - that has boosted the frequency of belief in his Muslim identity. The 27 percenters may have simply forgotten about Reverend Jeremiah Wright. No doubt they will be reminded some day, when the reminder benefits the reminders, and we will once again be having our noses rubbed in Obama's radical Christian liberation theology as espoused by the good Reverend.

This "failure of communication" is not Obama's failure. It is the same failure that has resulted in substantial proportions of Americans (the same ones, over and over) somehow coming across the same bizarre falsehoods, and in concert believing them, in many politically charged arenas of journalism and mainstream media "communication";

its source the willingness of that media to abet and repeat and broadcast and dwell on and proliferate specific falsehoods, supplied by and for the benefit of one particular power structure and political agenda in the US.

People don't like Obama because of his policies and because the economy is in the tank.

That can't be so. People don't know what his policies are, and have no reason to blame the tanked economy on him.

 

[spidergoat]

Obama's base is demobilized. Obama has not even tried to delivere the changes that many hoped for.

Yes he has tried and he has delivered in many areas.

 

[Tiassa]

The problem with your point

People don't like Obama because of his policies and because the economy is in the tank.

This is one of those things you repeat over and over in hopes it becomes true. And, to a certain extent, it has. That is, of course it's the economy.

But the conservative chorus hasn't changed a bit from the outset, back when the Republicans tried to recover from their electoral loss by embracing the hate-laden lunatic fringe and trying to make the Tea Party and Birthers respectable.

Of course, supporting and defending racism doesn't mean one is racist. Isn't that how your logic goes? It just means they're angry. Is that right?

Maybe if the GOP hadn't bent over for the lunatic fringe, and maybe if you hadn't been cheering them the whole way, your assertion would have more credibility. Of course it's the economy. Which is why so many people think he's a Muslim. Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

 

[Alien Cockroach]

This is one of those things you repeat over and over in hopes it becomes true.

Don't scorn your enemy's weapons just because he uses them to blow up your bases. Simply state what you know to be the truth, repeatedly, with glowing confidence. It is highly effective. Simply lighten up, and start speaking optimistically. It makes your opponent seem shrill and pretentious.

One example would be to pound on the fact that Obama's stimulus package, whether or not you agree with government spending, has brought into government an unprecedented level of transparency. Try to pound on how historic it really is. A private individual can track every dollar of the stimulus. He can find the exact addresses of institutions in his own neighborhood.

http://www.recovery.gov/Pages/home.aspx

Even the most "fiscally conservative" voters can be brought to appreciate this. As fiscal democracy goes, this is like putting a man on the Moon. Simply click on "Where is the money going?" and select "Map central." You can probably find someone within walking distance who has applied to receive stimulus money. Talk about things like this in confident, glowing terms. It works. Unlike Anthony, you have factual accuracy on your side.

Of course it's the economy. Which is why so many people think he's a Muslim. Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

It isn't supposed to. It's intended to cause confusion. The ploy is highly effective, actually. I have seen it in action numerous times. It is also difficult to avoid getting roped in without also killing your own advantages. As crisply and calmly as you can, denounce it as nonsense, and try to use tones that suggest that your opponent has told a crass or inappropriate joke.

 

[Tiassa]

Disingenuous foes

Don't scorn your enemy's weapons just because he uses them to blow up your bases.

I wouldn't disagree. However, this particular tool has been used to death in the sense that if one lobs enough bombs, eventually, statistically, he will hit the target.

In a certain context, the logic has caught up to the argument, but even that doesn't hold. An examination of Obama's difficulties with the economy must necessarily account for the tools he has at his disposal. From the outset, many economists argued that the stimulus was too small. The condition of the economy at present reflects some of their predictions.

Why, then, was the stimulus too small? Is this solely Obama's fault? That is, does he have the authority to craft, enact, and enforce the stimulus all on his own?

No, of course not. But all of the sound and fury put up by right-wing fanatics to blame Obama for certain outcomes deliberately ignores the fact that Congress plays a vital role in determining these outcomes.

Or, as Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), the Senate Minority Leader, explained to The New York Times:

I wish we had been able to obstruct more. They were able to get the health care bill through. They were able to get the stimulus through. They were able to get the financial reform through. These were all major pieces of legislation, and if I would have had enough votes to stop them, I would have.​

Instead of a too-small stimulus, which was the result of "bipartisanship" and "compromise", McConnell would have preferred no stimulus at all.

The Democrats'—and Obama's—error has, as it turns out, to attempt any bipartisanship at all. McConnell's sentiments are hardly new; apparently, it's been his plan the whole time.

So what we end up with is that the Republicans do everything they can to undermine the president and delay the people's misery in hopes of winning their support, frustration about the economy eventually brings the GOP some of that result insofar as enthusiasm for Obama erodes, and the explanation for the declining numbers is that, "it indicates that the president has so lost touch with the American people that they no longer even know who he is".

I find this construction disingenuous to say the least, but also reflective of our neighbor's longstanding rhetoric. If he's managed to hit the target, I'm not particularly impressed; he's certainly lobbed enough bombs.

To put it in a baseball metaphor, we might celebrate the first hit of a young player just up from the minors. But if that hit comes after a hundred at-bats that all resulted in strikeouts, are we really supposed to be impressed?

Take a look at the point doesn't want to address. Apparently, GOP propaganda efforts and support of fallacy and falsehood has nothing to do with it, then. Which is a curious argument to take. If the GOP is so ineffective at communicating with the people, why should Obama's eroding support mean any sort of gain from them? That is, does Spidergoat have a point, that Americns have no critical thinking skills? And what does it say that this should be the key to a GOP victory in November?

One need not disdain the enemy's weapons for striking a target. Rather, one can disdain the enemy for being disingenuous. It's not the weapon I question. A weapon is just a tool that happens to cause destruction. Its real potential lies in the character of those who wield it.
____________________

Notes:

Hulse, Carl. "No Reveling for Democrats, Despite Achievements". The New York Times. August 15, 2010; page A16. NYTimes.com. August 20, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/us/politics/15memo.html

Hulse, Carl and Adam Nagourney. "Senate G.O.P. Leader Finds Weapon in Unity". The New York Times. March 17, 2010, page A13. NYTimes.com. August 20, 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/us/politics/17mcconnell.html

 

[Alien Cockroach]

I wouldn't disagree. However, this particular tool has been used to death in the sense that if one lobs enough bombs, eventually, statistically, he will hit the target.

Still effective. In extolling the virtues of your candidate's policies, don't give your opponent time to bring up a list of supposed flaws or weaknesses in those policies. I know from experience that those supposed weaknesses are illusory.

For example, when you talk about the stimulus bill having a high level of transparency, they might talk about how the government put up a bunch of road signs saying, "your stimulus dollars at work," and nothing has been done. Well, over a half-billion dollars have been poured into Florida's DOT alone, and more is on the way: it's no different for the DOT to waste your federal tax dollars than it is for them to waste your state tax dollars. The difference in this case is that you have an exact figure for how much of your money the state of Florida is taking, and they can't hide it from you. You can take a trip with a bus-load of your buddies to the DOT and demand an explanation. If anything, that is evidence of the point that you were originally making.

The moral is that, when your opponent takes a breath to try to counter your argument, move onto the next before the filthy scoundrel has time to muddy the waters. Consider details in the board-room.

The Democrats'—and Obama's—error has, as it turns out, to attempt any bipartisanship at all. McConnell's sentiments are hardly new; apparently, it's been his plan the whole time.

I know. The only thing for it is to try to dislodge the GOP from our government as quickly as we can. The only kind of government that can work effectively is one in which the ability of the GOP to affect any part of its functioning has been reduced to nil. They are a liability. Men like McConnell have proven that they are intent on being a liability.

However, the real challenge is getting Democrats to realize that this is actually the case, so they can act on it. The Democrats cannot win elections without a good ground army. It is the make or break for them. If the Democratic base is uninspired, elections don't go very well for the Democrats.

The most important objective is to maintain our hold on the Senate. At least, if we still have relatively good control over the Senate, we can prevent the system from becoming even more clogged with obstructionism. The House of Representatives is still important, but it does us no good to keep passing up legislation from the House of Representatives if everything they pass up keeps getting bogged down. With the Senate still under Democratic control, at least anything passed up from the House will be either rapidly passed along or rapidly terminated, comparatively speaking.

As far as the House, we need to start gearing up for 2012 starting immediately. We're about to shed a lot of Democrats who couldn't cut it. Instead of trying to bail them out, we should have been looking for their replacements starting about six months ago.

 

[Giambattista]

The moral is that, when your opponent takes a breath to try to counter your argument, move onto the next before the filthy scoundrel has time to muddy the waters. Consider details in the board-room.

Don't let them get a breath in while fellating adoring our new commander. Suffocation is the key.

Beyond that, what ever happened to Obama being a Muslim? :argue:

I know. The only thing for it is to try to dislodge the GOP from our government as quickly as we can. The only kind of government that can work effectively is one in which the ability of the GOP to affect any part of its functioning has been reduced to nil. They are a liability. Men like McConnell have proven that they are intent on being a liability.

How bout dislodging all usurpers from government?
How bout dislodging the national security and perpetual-warmonger termites from this once fine household? What good is a pile of sawdust to us?

Most career politicians have become a liability to this country.

 

[Tiassa]

The equality of all things?

Most career politicians have become a liability to this country.

But not all liabilities are equal. That is, one might argue, justly, that the leaking water hose in my car's engine is a safety hazard. One also might argue, again, justly, that a crackhead with a gun is a safety hazard. But I wouldn't say the two hazards are equal.

Would you?

 

[Light Travelling]

Most career politicians have become a liability to this country.

Career politicians are a liability in any country. By definition they will be self serving. It is a dichotomy that those who seek power are usually unfit to wield it. Those who are more capable of avoiding corruption and self interest are usually not interested in positions of power..

It is also an inherent problem of democracy that it has to be popularist. Decisions poplar with the electorate are not always the right ones; making the ‘right’ decision can sometimes mean no chance of re-election.

 

[Giambattista]

But not all liabilities are equal. That is, one might argue, justly, that the leaking water hose in my car's engine is a safety hazard. One also might argue, again, justly, that a crackhead with a gun is a safety hazard. But I wouldn't say the two hazards are equal.

Would you?

You're trying to be relevant, but it doesn't work. At least not with me.
Your equation is pretty stupid.

Many politicians are serving "higher" powers, and it doesn't matter whether or not they're on the Red team or Blue team.

Continue suffocation.

 

[Giambattista]

It is also an inherent problem of democracy that it has to be popularist. Decisions poplar with the electorate are not always the right ones; making the ‘right’ decision can sometimes mean no chance of re-election.

How popularist are politicians these days?

Is it that politicians are part of the same apparatus that dictate popular opinion?

No. That would involve a conspiracy theory. That will never fly around here.

 

[Light Travelling]

How popularist are politicians these days?
.

Well, they try.. bless em

 

[Repo Man]

So, Obama is to blame for not spending more time fighting the smear campaign? The hysterical part of this is how the opposition have made much of his attending a Christian church where Jeremiah Wright gave his critical of the US, and therefore unacceptable, sermons. So, does he get a pass for that now that it's "obvious" that he was only attending in order to cover up his true Muslim identity?

 

[Buffalo Roam]

So, Obama is to blame for not spending more time fighting the smear campaign? The hysterical part of this is how the opposition have made much of his attending a Christian church where Jeremiah Wright gave his critical of the US, and therefore unacceptable, sermons. So, does he get a pass for that now that it's "obvious" that he was only attending in order to cover up his true Muslim identity?

Really and what about?

20 years at the Trinity United Church of Christ under the supposed former Black Muslim, member of the Nation of Islam, The Rev. Wright ?

1984, Wright, one of the inner circle that traveled with Farrakhan to visit Libyan strongman Col. Muammar Khadafy.

July 22, 2007, church bulletin, Hamas manifesto;

http://www.bizzyblog.com/wp-images/TUCChamasColumn072207.jpg

Reverend Wright’s hate sermons are virtually identical as those given by his good friend, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who followed in the footsteps of Malcolm X.

Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness." That man is Louis Farrakhan.

Obama’s plagiarism of a speech delivered by Nation of Islam leader Malcolm X

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuB_W8o_UsU​

Yes, and more, so why wouldn't there be questions about what Obamas true beliefs are.

I hear Obama always talking about His Muslim Roots, and quoting the Quran, praising the beauty of the Adan in the morning and at night, and the supposed achievements of Islam,

but when do you hear Obama ever talk about His Christian roots, His faith as a Christian, the beauty of the music from what He professes as His chosen Religion,

All I have ever heard from Obama is praise about His Muslim Roots.........That He has known Islam on Three Continents........and that America is no longer a Christian Nation.

Now again why shouldn't there be questions?

 

[spidergoat]

America has never been a Christian nation. We are in an economic crisis and a disastrous war in which having Muslims as friends is vital to our success. And all you want to talk about is lies about the president. Karl Rove and his proteges feed you this shit out of their fetid media anus (owned in no small part by a fabulously wealthy Saudi Arabian) and you suck it up and ask for more. They deserve nothing but a big middle finger while the adults will figure out how to fix their mistakes and put this country on the proper path again.

 

[Bells]

Now again why shouldn't there be questions?

No. Why should there be questions?

Are Muslims banned from becoming President? Is this in the Constitution?

Is it bad to be a Muslim? Are they not human beings?

The question that comes to mind when people accuse him of being a Muslim is 'why is it suddenly worthy of an accusation to say that someone is a Muslim?'.. Why do you voice it like an insult?

Why should there be questions as to his religious beliefs?

Should he be removed from the white house if he were a Muslim? Should he be arrested? Barred from public office?

What is so wrong with Muslims that you think questions should be asked Buffalo?

The man is not a Muslim. But so what if he was?

Why does he need to talk about his religious roots at all? What business is it of yours or anyone else's what his religion is? Why does religion even enter into the political debate? Does your country not enjoy the separation of Church and State?