American Weirdness du jour: More Americans imagine that Obama is Muslim

[Florestan]

Would you welcome a MuslimChristian family to move over next door to you and be your neighbour.  The answer is obviously yes, you would have no problem with that and wouldn't even give it a second thought.

If you answer no, then that is the problem, and you need to get over your prejudice of Muslim Christian people, period.

Change the place from US to Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Iran and you get the above. 

Tolerance is good but it should work both ways. Don't you agree?

[Wendell_E]

What evidence is there for this assertion, other than typically self-serving  political hypocrisy? "Obama says he's a practising Christian so we'll take his words at face value".

Well, for previous presidents, that's been sufficient (yeah, I'm looking at you, Ronald Wilson Reagan).  I wonder what "evidence" would be sufficient to the naysayers?  I suspect that no matter how much "evidence" there was, they'd just accuse him of faking it.  I'd love to see them try to produce any evidence that he's a Muslim, or not a native-born U.S. citizen.

[Todd]

The problem is not what the RW nuts say, the problem is that saying someone is Muslim would instill fear and hatred in the American people.

Does saying Obama is a Muslim instill fear and hatred in the American people?  At most, it may for a minority of people, but it certainly does not for the population as a whole. 

So we are clear, are you stating or implying similar results would not occur in other countries if politicians tried something similar, particularly in Western Europe?  Are Muslims fully integrated into the social fabric of, say, France or Germany?

[Florestan]

Well, for previous presidents, that's been sufficient (yeah, I'm looking at you, Ronald Wilson Reagan).  I wonder what "evidence" would be sufficient to the naysayers?  I suspect that no matter how much "evidence" there was, they'd just accuse him of faking it.

I guess that's true --- but for most people this distrust stems not from any fundamentalism but from a long experience of politicians lying, cheating and masquerading, just to get elected.

[knight66]

Not really.  You came up with one additional example, on top of Disraeli, for the UK.  That hardly constitutes a huge number of potential Jewish heads of government in the UK.  Out of curiosity, when will there be a non-white, or Jewish, or Muslim head of state for the UK.  I think I know the answer.

I am surprised at you. No one can know the answer to this and to claim you think you do is not really a valid debating tactic. It is exactly the kind of remark I would expect you to challenge.

Mike

[Todd]

I am surprised at you. No one can know the answer to this and to claim you think you do is not really a valid debating tactic. It is exactly the kind of remark I would expect you to challenge.

Alright, when in your estimation will the House of Windsor be replaced by a Jewish, Muslim, or non-white dynasty?  Of course I don't know that will never happen, but it seems rather unlikely. 

Also, it seems that some European leaders are a wee bit on the cynical side and may exploit minorities for political purposes as well: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100830/ap_on_re_eu/eu_france_gypsy_crackdown.  No doubt the rationale is better intentioned and reasoned than those questioning Obama's religion or the recent/current immigration brouhaha over this way.

[knight66]

Since the royal family gets it dubious, place via heredity, it is irrelevant to the issue. More to the point is elected leadership. And my remarks remain valid.

I have no arguments re Obama. My issue is with the attempt at comparisons, which can be valid, but which I think you compromised.

Mike

[Todd]

Since the royal family gets it dubious, place via heredity, it is irrelevant to the issue. More to the point is elected leadership. And my remarks remain valid.

I have no arguments re Obama. My issue is with the attempt at comparisons, which can be valid, but which I think you compromised.

I was very careful in my wording; I was referring specifically to head of state, not head of government.  (That was dealt with in prior posts.)  Please correct me if I am mistaken, but is not the Crown the head of state in the UK, and not subject to election?  If that is the case, when will the head of state be a minority?

[Florestan]

Also, it seems that some European leaders are a wee bit on the cynical side and may exploit minorities for political purposes as well: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100830/ap_on_re_eu/eu_france_gypsy_crackdown. 

I am Romanian yet I fully support Sarkozy's stance on gypsies --- and so do nine out of ten of my fellow countrymen. And I invite all those who rant about "human rights" to live for just one month in the nearest vicinity of a gypsy camp.

[knight66]

Todd, I don't get your point than. Because as there is no election, it is not going to change in the way the rest of the 'ruling' class can. So it is a pointless debating point.

We had a female premier, but she pulled up the ladder and made sure she was the only one of her sex to get near the top of her government. We have a fair smattering of influential minorities, often minority women, in the Lords.

I can't be hacked looking at the demographics, but the minorities in the UK are exactly that, I seem to recall recently that Muslims constitute 2% of the population. So the comparisons perhaps need to be drawn in a more sophisticated way than...my society is more open than yours. I am not really interested in this kind of discussion. I entered it when I felt you were trying to get one in under the line.

Mike

[bwv 1080]

I was very careful in my wording; I was referring specifically to head of state, not head of government.  (That was dealt with in prior posts.)  Please correct me if I am mistaken, but is not the Crown the head of state in the UK, and not subject to election?  If that is the case, when will the head of state be a minority?

England's head of state has been a minority for over 400 years, the current Royal family being the Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha.  The last English person to sit on the throne was Elizabeth I.  Since then the head of state has been either a Scot or a German

[knight66]

What might provide more mileage was the ban on the Prime Minister being a Roman Catholic, ditto the monarch. There were reasons, are there not always, but the relevance of them is so far in the past that we ought to be able to have sorted this out long ago.

Tradition is one thing, but when it impedes progress, that is another issue.

Mike

[Florestan]

The last English person to sit on the throne was Elizabeth I.  Since then the head of state has been either a Scot or a German

You forgot the Dutch.

[knight66]

'Repatriate them', that's what I say.

But anyway, topic police, see the title of the thread.

Mike

[Todd]

Todd, I don't get your point than....So the comparisons perhaps need to be drawn in a more sophisticated way than...my society is more open than yours.

My point was stated earlier, and to sum it up, it's very easy to find examples of discrimination and exclusion in every country.  More often than not, discussions on this topic tend to oversimplified "arguments" that ignore unpleasant realities everywhere.  Some even resort to lines like "the rest of the world" without even defining what that means. 

Of course, even lazy thought about the issue can raise another question: Does the race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation of a leader, any leader, really indicate the condition various minorities live in?  For instance, did Obama's election magically lift the high school and college graduation rate of black males in the US? 

England's head of state has been a minority for over 400 years, the current Royal family being the Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha.  The last English person to sit on the throne was Elizabeth I.  Since then the head of state has been either a Scot or a German

True enough.  I'll be more precise: When will the Crown not be pasty white?

[knight66]

More often than not, discussions on this topic tend to oversimplified "arguments" that ignore unpleasant realities everywhere.  Some even resort to lines like "the rest of the world" without even defining what that means. 

I agree with that.

Mike

[Herman]

I guess that's true --- but for most people this distrust stems not from any fundamentalism but from a long experience of politicians lying, cheating and masquerading, just to get elected.

Maybe, but it seems the biggest lies are now being produced by people who want to render Obama a helpless one-termer. The question to ask, Florestan, is not is Obama really going to church / reading the Bible? but why has spreading lies about Obama gotten to be one of the few domestic growth industries?

Scepticism about pious statements presidential candidates routinely make is warranted. However never before has there been such a large portion of the population willing to believe rather weird things about the president than now, and I can only think of one reason why. Obama is black (the term "half-white" is non-existent) and there is a large group of the population who has an extremily hard time with a black person in Washington who is not avowedly "conservative"  -  i.e. toeing the white line  -  and that's why it is very easy for agitators to spread all kinds of scare stories about Obama. I.e. he's "muslim" (in a time when this is a very scary term, viz the hullaballoo about the "ground zero mosque"  -  which, needless to say, is neither at ground zero nor a mosque), a "socialist" or even a "communist" (while in reality Obama is a moderate Dem) and, of course, he's not even legitimely president since he's supposedly not born in the US. All this nonsense goes down quite well with millions of Americans because they are furious at a black person making it to the White House. And the economy (wrecked by Dubya's pals) doesn't make it any easier either. There's just no other way around it.

[Florestan]

The question to ask, Florestan, is not is Obama really going to church / reading the Bible? but why has spreading lies about Obama gotten to be one of the few domestic growth industries?

Fair enough.

the term "half-white" is non-existent

But "mulatto" is, and it describes exactly Obama's racial mix.

and there is a large group of the population who has an extremily hard time with a black person in Washington who is not avowedly "conservative"  -  i.e. toeing the white line  -  and that's why it is very easy for agitators to spread all kinds of scare stories about Obama. I.e. he's "muslim" (in a time when this is a very scary term, viz the hullaballoo about the "ground zero mosque"  -  which, needless to say, is neither at ground zero nor a mosque), a "socialist" or even a "communist" (while in reality Obama is a moderate Dem) and, of course, he's not even legitimely president since he's supposedly not born in the US. All this nonsense goes down quite well with millions of Americans because they are furious at a black person making it to the White House. And the economy (wrecked by Dubya's pals) doesn't make it any easier either. There's just no other way around it.

Ok, but for all that, the fact remains that the majority of the US citizens elected a black as President thus putting US ahead of "the rest of the world" and not behind. Todd is absolutely right.

[Todd]

However never before has there been such a large portion of the population willing to believe rather weird things about the president than now, and I can only think of one reason why. Obama is black (the term "half-white" is non-existent)

You've now fallen into the trap of describing what is happening as somehow unique, verging on the worst ever.  Yes, Obama is black (or mulatto, or whatever), and absolutely some people don't like that one bit, but to claim that "never before" has a "large portion" of the population been willing to believe nonsense about a politician is historically wrong.  Look at the intense political fights between the supporters of Hamilton and Jefferson, where some rather harsh things were said (though often, but not always, more eloquently), and some people were willing to take up arms.  Look at the Andrew Jackson and John Quincy Adams partisans, the various opponents of Lincoln, the bimetallism fights, the opponents of Wilson and FDR, the nut jobs during the Red Scare when a fringe group like the John Birch Society could be formed, the opposition to civil rights, and even the attacks on Clinton.  Absurd politics is not uncommon in the US, and to claim that now it's really different, that's it's the worst ever, that it has never been done before is just plain wrong.

There are other reasons people don't like or even hate Obama beyond his race.  There are, in fact, people who oppose expansion of the government and see health care legislation as a threat of some sort.  They don't support other aspects of the Obama agenda, either.  Of course there are cynical opponents who want to stir up false controversies, to stir up passions, and that has happened.  The Tea Party is a passing fad, funded at least partly by some wealthy right wingers (like, say, the Kochs).  Is it all about Obama, and will it fade after Obama is gone?  Maybe, maybe not, but either way, the Tea Party will not be a lasting force.  Something to consider in all of this is that one of the real driving forces here is the same one that always matters most – the economy.  In a weak economy, when there is no effective foreign bugaboo to focus on (eg, the USSR), people often turn to easy targets such as immigrants and evil government.  Obama's funny name and dark complexion matter to some, but not even close to a majority, let alone all Americans.  If the economy improves substantially between now and November 2012, there's a very good possibility Obama will be a two termer. 

Now, as to "the biggest lies are now being produced by people who want to render Obama a helpless one-termer," well, yes.  So?  Opponents always want the party in power to be in office only one term, and they always offer lies to help make that happen.  Again, nothing new, and nothing exceptional.

[karlhenning]

More on the Weirdness:

A question of ignorance

Many Americans are misinformed about Obama's religion, says Tunku Varadarajan in the Daily Beast, because of "confirmation bias" -- that is, believing what you want to believe:

"The fifth of Americans who hold that Obama is Muslim are unquestionably those for whom the president can do no right. Casting him as a Muslim is a convenient -- and provocative -- form of devaluation in a society which is fearful of Muslims in general. 'Muslimers' -- if I may put it that way -- are of the same ilk as 'birthers,' those who maintain (again, without a shred of evidence) that Obama was not born in the United States, rendering him ineligible for the White House. (Obama's Muslimization is a way to render him ineligible, culturally, to be an American president.)

" 'Truthers' are the left-wing counterparts of these cohorts on the right, holding -- again, in the face of all evidence and common sense -- that the United States government was itself the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. (Twenty-two percent of Americans believe that George W. Bush knew about the attacks in advance; and since there is likely to be little or no overlap between these Americans and those 18 percent who think Obama is Muslim, we have a frightening  40 percent who subscribe to a demonstrably cockamamie belief.) . . . ."

Full column here.