Poll: Sinking Perceptions Of Islam

[ECH1969]

Although Americans believe they are better informed about Islam than they were five years ago, a new CBS News poll finds fewer than one in five say their impression of the religion is favorable.

Forty-five percent of respondents queried April 6 - 9 said they have an unfavorable view of Islam, a rise from 36 percent in February. And the public’s impression of Islam has diminished even more compared with four years ago. In February 2002 – less than six months after the terrorist attacks of September 11 – the country was evenly divided in its impression of Islam.

Americans today are also more likely than not to believe that Islam encourages violence, at least in comparison to other religions around the world.

The poll finds 46 percent of Americans believe Islam encourages violence more than other religions, compared with 39 percent of Americans who felt that way two months ago and 35 percent who felt that way in March 2002.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/04/12/national/main1494697.shtml

[Ron Green]

1. My hope is that more and more people around the world will see ALL "enemy-

based" religions for what they are: systems of control rather than spiritual paths.

[Oversea Visitor]

6. Duh!!!!!!!!!

"enemy-based" religion

What is this a religious war :rofl:

[Ron Green]

9. Any belief system that imagines enemies is not seeing the truth about God,

in my opinion. Whether it's "Christian soldiers" or Zionist warriors or Islamic jihadists, they're missing the Big Idea, which is we are all truly One.

[sweetheart]

22. worthy opponent perhaps

The word "enemy" may be outdated,
but to say "friend" is really not fair,
To say "lover" is abusurdly elevated,
to say "dirt" denies them life out there.

Might we then be left with an "opponent",
one who exploits our weaknesses that we share,
street hardened hateful child don't relent,
please rape us all blind, heavy burden to bear.

When child bullys surround a kid on the ground,
Do you say kids are all cuteness, cheekey and dare,
That kid they're stomping isn't all that sound,
And they're not enemies, its not PC to stare.
In a world of darkness and ignorance.
Amoral business, your "enemies" defense.

[INDIA]

39. Ahhhhh, the typical DU knee jerk response

Average American: I have an unfavorable impression of Islam because of terrorism, riots, suicide bombings, Islamic law governments, death sentences for adultery, repression of women etc.

DUer: Well......Right wing fundies are crazy too!!! They're against abortion!!!

I don't like Christian fundamentalists either, but comparing the two is silly. Apples and Oranges. It's almost like a DU talking point. Islam is a troubled religion that needs to become more moderate. Religion should be PART of ones life, and often in the case of Islam, it IS people's lives.

Bring em home!!!!

-India3

[Ron Green]

41. I disagree with you.

The typical DU knee-jerk response would be more like, "all religion is harmful, and should therefore be replaced by logic and reason."

My response is that any religion that entertains the idea of enemies does not serve us well. Examples are all around the world. A religion that serves us well is one that teaches and requires forgiveness of others, and ultimately the knowledge that we ARE the "others" we have always feared. This is rare and difficult knowledge (it's what Jesus taught, of course), and that's why it's the purview of the Church and not the State, and certainly not the Market. Most people can't figure out this high level of forgiveness, and that's why they'll continue to fuck up. Nevertheless, my hope, and maybe your hope, is that more and more people will follow this path.

[jahyarain]

46. well then i disagree with both

"The typical DU knee-jerk response would be more like, "all religion is harmful, and should therefore be replaced by logic and reason."

that typical knee-jerk response would be the correct one. if u don't follow islam you're an infidel and would be better off taking your own life. if you don't accept Jesus as your lord and personal saviour, you'll burn in hell forever. i've read both fairy tales and both seem to preach of a hateful, vile, jealous god (which she isn't). it's WAY past time for everyone to grow the fuck up and realize even by your particular books claims there is only one God (a Truth, finally) and she/he/it is not hateful, didn't create a hell, and doesn't want harm to come to you if don't go to church every Sunday and Wednesday night or pray fifteen gazillion times a day. these man made religions separate people which goes directly against how God created us (tribal). WE ARE SUPPOSED TO TAKE CARE OF EACH OTHER! why is that so fucking hard to understand?

[VegasWolf]

47. So why exactly should or must religion be a part of someone's life? nt

[Ron Green]

53. If I may answer,

There has always been a State of some sort, whether it's the king or an elected body or whatever.

There has always been a Market, sometimes centrally controlled and sometimes totally unfettered.

And there has always been a Church, sometimes organized, sometimes animistic, sometimes wise, sometimes foolish.

Just as a human has a "superego," an "ego" and and "id," so does humankind have these. The State tells us what we have to do, the Church tells us what we should do, and the Market tells us what we want to do.

I know how exasperating it is for reasonable and logical people to consider the harm religion has done, and is doing, to the world. But for the reasons I listed above, we cannot exist without a cosmology and an ethic, and these are provided by the Church, whether it be the beady-eyed, sweaty-upper-lipped vitriol of the fundamentalist or the calm and centered awareness of the Buddhist master.

[VegasWolf]

116. Others of us simply view organized religion as an extension of the

state. It controls and enforces state dogma. For example, the Catholic Church during any of the Crusades or during the Spanish land grabs. In this viewpoint, your analogy of an extended ego, superego, and id falls apart.

I see no real requirement for religion. Some people desire a rigid set of guidelines with which to live their lives, others, many progressives, wish a loose set of guidelines. Neither approach is good or bad, they are simply human needs.

You are correct that mankind has always had a need for gods, from the early thunder gods, through all the recent incarnations. This doesn't imply that there is a god, merely, that mankind has a need for one.

As you are probably aware many philosophers have speculated as to the reason that mankind so deeply needs a god. Many feel that it is a fear of death that drives this need, a permanent death of the soul, not just physical death. Many psychologists feel that a fear of death is irrational, therefore harmful. In the end it may be freeing to relieve ourselves of all phobias.

For my own personal happiness, I never have felt so complete as when I gave up any remaining pretexts of religion or god and stood firmly on my own two feet.

[Ron Green]

117. Sometimes the opposite is true: The state is an extension of the Church.

Bush and the fundies are making a run in that direction even now. My point, however, is that to simply decide to "opt out" of the Church (I'm using this term in its very broadest sense, meaning the spiritual life of a people or culture, a shared belief system) is an individual decision, and while it may work for you, it doesn't alter the fact that such belief systems have always existed and will always exist, as long as science can't really answer the biggest questions. The important issue is whether such a belief system enlightens and educates, or oppresses and lies.

My analogy of the extended Freudian "segments" is still borne out by history, if we look at the Crusades or any other pernicious adventurism under the aegis of the Church. It's just like the "critical parent" of Harris' I'm OK, You're OK, in which transactions become corrupted by an overactive superego, and the agency of the Adult (the State) makes war on someone who "should" be doing something. An Islamist state is likely to make war upon the "infidel," just as the overly critical parent punishes the child.

The modern US is quite the opposite, our Free Market having gained control over the government. We will let the State do anything it can to guarantee cheap gas for SUV's, encourage McMansion proliferation and let the masses waddle through Wal*Mart to their congestive hearts' content. The id rules here in the land of the Great Satan.

I admire your logic and reason in personally rejecting religion for yourself, but we must consider things as they are.

[adigal]

66. Why is it apples and oranges???

We, with our war against Iraq, have killed a minimum of 30,000 civilians. Al Queda, with their hijacking of airplanes, killed 3000 Americans. Did they strike first?? We say they did. But if you ask them, there is a long list of grievances that goes back about 50 years.

So who is right?? I think that they were horribly wrong, taking out their grievances on our citizens. And we are wrong when we take out our anger on their civilians. And until both sides see this, which will never happens with our Hannity's and Limbaugh's, and their extremists, we will never have peace. Which makes General Electric very happy.

[nolabels]

80. You accept the government theory about their 9/11?

In the scope of things the death and damage on 9/11 was small and inconsequential to humans. The fact that the US governments claim or theories about what happened on that day and why the government states we must pay so much reverence to it are even more suspect.

Without a perceived boogie man much of the US government would be just a wasted appendage needing to be jettisoned. Then to ponder even for moment, that if it really was this group the US government says it was then why did not the government accept it as their failure? No they didn't, instead they said we need to go to WAR with whoever they could blame it on. Do you accept what the government says as gospel or do you think they might also be suspect? Think of all the BILLIONS of dollars is riding on making people think the government is correct in all they do.

[INDIA]

82. The diff is...

Our war against Iraq isn't a holy one. It is based on war profits and imperialism. Terrorism, like Al Qaeda, is jihad, holy struggle, and those who kill others are martyrs. If Christian fundies were responsible for the 30,000 fine, but it is our government and our military, and although our brain dead president may be christian, it doesn't mean that our government and foreign policy is as well. You are blurring the line between the two. THAT's is why it is apples and oranges. My argument was that comparing relatively harmless christian fundamentalists to Islamic extremists is a stretch at best. It's reality.

[bee]

13. I know quite a few fundies who actually see it that way.

(as a religious war) no joke. They scare me.

[Ariana Celeste]

113. Same here

My uncle is one of them. :scared:

He had a long talk with me about it one night. Really opened my eyes up about him as a person.

[Terran1212]

57. In any war the enemy's culture or race or religion is demonized

It's all the rage now to attack Muslims as in Vietnam era many attacked the Vietnamese culture, westmoreland even said, "The Oriental doesn't put the same value on life as the Westerner."

It always has happened and always will. In 50 years when the US is fighting some other enemy in the world there will be a different set of attacks against religions and cultures -- and eventually some of the attacks will hit center and come true.

Bush's wars have brought out those sorts of elements, to be sure.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

2. Times change and things remain the same.....

http://www.medievalcrusades.com/


The year was 1095 CE, William the Conqueror had united England under one crown 30 years earlier. The French had been dividing properties amongst their sons for generations, causing bloodshed between brothers over small pieces of real estate. In reaction, Pope Urban II expanded "The Truce of God", which outlawed fighting from Sunday to Wednesday, and banned fighting involving priests, monks, women, laborers and merchants on any day of the week. Italy was a collection of city-states, constantly being overrun by invading hordes, the latest of which were the Normans, who had just started to become "civilized".

There was also the Byzantine empire, ruling from Constantinople, whose emperor at this time was Alexius Comnenus. To his East, the Turks were rapidly encroaching on his empire, and had begun attacking pilgrims on their way to - and in - Jerusalem, causing him great distress. He wrote to his friend Robert, the Count of Flanders, in 1093, telling him about supposed atrocities committed by the Turks on the Christian pilgrims, and Robert passed this letter on to Pope Urban II. Urban, an opportunist, saw this as a perfect way to solve some of his local problems. He personally promoted a Holy Crusade to reclaim the Holy Lands from the barbarian Turks. Thus, the First Crusade was launched in 1096 CE.

At this point, we need a list of players. Many went along, but only a few are worth remembering. It was an international group, with members from France, Italy and England. From France, we have Hugh the (not so) Great, Count of Vermandois, brother of the French King of Northern and Central France, and a man of little character with no other importance to our story. With him were Godfrey, Baldwin and Eustace of Bouillon, sons of the Duke of Lower Lorraine - descended through their mother from Charlemagne - along with their cousin, Baldwin Le Bourg. Also from France, we have Raymond IV of Saint-Gilles, Count of Toulouse, who had already fought the Moors in Spain. His mother was a princess of Barcelona. He was the first to "Take the Cross".

[Kutjara]

3. Because Islam is just...

...one big monolithic religion with no shades of belief, no range of views, right? I mean, you see one Muslim, you've seen them all, yeah? They all believe exactly the same things whether they live in Riyadh, Mumbai, London, Kuala Lumpur or Jakarta, don't they? Uniquely of all faiths in the world, Islam has no internal tensions, no moderates, no pacifists, no disputes over doctrine; it a single smooth surface of total accord and agreement. Amazing!

Polls like this make me sick. They presume what they pretend to ask. The answer is implicit in the question.

[marmar]

5. So true...

Would they pose such a question about Christianity: "With hatemongers such as Pat Robertson spewing homophobic, racist, sexist, xenophobic, murderous vitriol, and many Christian conservatives immersing themselves in anti-gay, anti-family planning political causes, has your impression of Christianity gotten better or worse?"

:argh:

[brentspeak]

14. Rest assured...

at this point in time, probably the majority of Americans dissaprove of the Pat Robertson types.

Nevertheless, the public can hardly be blamed for being extremely leery of Islam after watching 3,000 of their fellow citizens being annihilated by crazed Islamic militants flying hijacked planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. And three decades of endless high publicity Islamic terrorist attacks conducted around the world (not to mention 400 Americans being taken hostage in Iran) haven't exactly done much to endear Muslims to the western world, I'm sure you would agree.

[LynnTheDem]

20. Nevertheless, the world can hardly be blamed for being extremely leery

of America and "Christianity" after watching 100,000 of their fellow citizens being annihilated by crazed American militants flying planes into Iraq & bombing men, women & children steadily over the past 4 years. And a decade of endless daily bombing haven't exactly done much to endear American "Christians" to the world, I'm sure you would agree.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[av8tor05]

33. What crazed Americans are you talking about?

Please back up your statement about 100,000 fellow citizens being annilated by bombs "steadily over the past 4 years." If you can.

[ButterflyBlood]

36. Probably a reference to Iraq

Although it hardly works as a valid analogy here. One nation invading another for imperalistic gains is not religious warfare. America is not a Christian nation, unless you buy the claims of the fundies, and Iraq was invaded for imperialistic gain and oil, not any sort of religious warfare.

If Christian extremists started suicide bombing and flying planes into buildings into Middle Eastern countries, there'd be an equivalent to Islamic extremists terrorists. But there isn't.

[The Stranger]

40. The religious overtones of the invasion, and its most vocal supporters,

simply cannot be ignored. There is no one reason, but many reasons, and a major reason is the fact that the most significant pillar of support provided the regime that invaded believe that they have a religious duty to convert the Muslim world.

[Bridget Burke]

42. And Bush has used the word "Crusade"....

Only a few times--but the word still has meaning.

[VegasWolf]

49. Exactly, and Bush himself implying that God personally approved of

the attack on Iraq because Bush "prayed on it so deeply."

[ButterflyBlood]

91. Why aren't they invading Buddhist countries to convert them?

Because most Buddhist countries don't have any oil.

What is important is why the invasion took place, and that's about imperalism and oil. Bush is essentially doing what Saddam did during the Gulf War, when he attacked the Saudis as illegitimate guardians of Mecca and Medina, despite him being rather secular and not truly caring about Islam. It's an attempt to use religion to earn support among the populace, but the actions are not influenced by religion itself.

[The Stranger]

97. There is millenia-spanning history to this conflict that you are missing.

I would recommend some reading:

Holy War: The Crusades and Their Impact On Today's World, by Karen Armstrong.

Crusade : Chronicles of an Unjust War, by James Carroll.

[ButterflyBlood]

107. Animosity between the Christian and Muslim worlds do exist

But that does not mean that the religiosn are the exact casues of the animsoity.

One can compare the relations of Catholics and Protestants in both Northern Ireland and Germany, or the relations of Catholics and Orthodox in both the former Yugoslavia and Ukraine. The religions are the same, but in each example relations are far better in one case than the other. German Catholics and Protestants get along far better than Northern Irish ones do due to the historical mitigating factors in Northern Ireland. The fighting was never over religious differences to begin with, Northern Ireland Catholics' goal was never to get the Protestants to submit to the Pope, nor did the Orthodox Serbs hate the Catholic Croats because they considered them schismatics now wrongly claiming to be the descendents of the original Christian church.

Had the primary adversary of Europe in the Middle Ages been the Mongols instead, we'd see much more animosity between the Christian and Buddhist worlds than Christian and Muslim.

[jahyarain]

51. i totally agree

but both sides are using religion

[ronnie624]

69. How you view yourself

as you invade another country and proceed to slaughter its inhabitants and plunder its resources is irrelevant. What is important is how those inhabitants regard you, and I would be willing to bet that many Iraqis see Christians pillaging and destroying their country.

[ButterflyBlood]

90. So when Saddam invaded Kuwait, did Kuwaitis see Muslims as doing that?

How about both Iraq and Iran during their war when they did that to each other?

Fact is, none of the wars involving Iraq were motivated by religion.

[ronnie624]

100. The conflicts to which you refer in your post

were in fact fomented by U.S. foreign policy as is most of the chaos in the region.

Your point about how muslims view each other is irrelevant because the topic is a poll measuring U.S. American attitudes toward Muslims.

[ButterflyBlood]

110. Probably true, but not the issue

The US is only a Christian nation in the eyes of the Christian Coalition and the 700 Club. The Constitution is quite clear on the issue of the role of religion in state, and the US is a secular nation in any legal sense.

My point was never on how Muslims view each other, but rather that a war over secular reasons should not be viewed as a religious one. Neither side thinks that Britan and Argentina's conflict over the Falklands is about Protestants illegitimately occupying the islands or Catholics trying to illegally seize them. That's because that's not the source of the conflict. Neither is the US invading Iraq. It's all about military bases and oil. On the other hand, religious fanatics did fly planes into the World Trade Center because of their religious fanaticism.

As for Americans' attitudes toward Islam, as I said in another post here, I bet this has more to do with Muslims rioting over cartoons or threatening to execute converts from Islam than buying into the right wing "all Muslims are violent terrorists" characture. I certainly don't think all Muslims are terrorists and believe the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, but I can't say I have a favorable view of Islam. I also believe that the vast majority of Southern Baptists have never bombed an abortion clinic or beaten up gays, but I certainly don't have a favorable view of the Southern Baptist Convention either.

[jahyarain]

50. i do believe he/she is speaking of

rummy, wolfie, and that "go fuck yourself" guy

[LynnTheDem]

56. I bet it was my "flying planes into Iraq" that gave it away.

:D

Love the '"go fuck yourself" guy' comment. :rofl:

[LynnTheDem]

55. I certainly can. So could you if you read properly.

Reread my post.

[The Straight Story]

58. Why is that relevant to the discussion?

Can we only say islam sucks if we say another faith sucks as well? I think mormons are whack jobs myself but I would not feel the need to qualify that and say 'well the amish ain't exactly perfect either'.

We can spend tons of threads here talking about evil american christians without anyone piping in and saying how bad islam is too. Or defending too much christians - mainly perhaps it is because we understand we are talking about the worst of group by definition and the group in toto.

I am not worried about the cool islamic folks, or the christian ones, etc. I am worried about the ones who want to kill and control. And there are a damn site load of evil islamic folks who want to do folks some harm and control all aspects of their lives.

I see no reason to defend them since we are not perfect.

[LynnTheDem]

74. Coz freedom of speech is still more than a figure of speech?

:)

[ronnie624]

85. It is relevant because

any honest discussion about Muslim extremism must include the policies and activities of those who are largely responsible for said extremism; namely "Christian" nations.

[ButterflyBlood]

92. Newsflash: Muslim extremists existed long before the US invaded Iraq

In fact, they existed long before the US even did.

[ronnie624]

103. We are responsible for what we do now

and once again you are grasping at ancient history in a vain and illogical attempt to justify U.S. foreign policy in modern times.

[ButterflyBlood]

114. I am not attemptting to justify the invasion of Iraq or the Bush Regime

But you can not absolve the actions of violent Islamic extremists because of them. Both the Bush Regime and Islamic extremists are a problem.

[ronnie624]

120. With a certainty Islamic extremism is a problem,

but dealing with the phenomenon in any logical manner is impossible without first understanding its origins. Understanding its origins is impossible without a sincere examination of Western policies with regard to countries with predominantly Muslim populations.

Surely no one can claim with a straight face that the activities of the U.K. and the U.S. in South Central Asia during the past century have not affected the attitudes of Muslims worldwide. These activities include a near unbroken stream of regime changes, bombings, invasions, assassinations and deliberately instigating conflict between tribes, ethnic groups and nations all so we can live in the lap of luxury in our consumer driven society (through the availability of cheap, plentiful crude oil). It must be obvious to any fair minded individual that such activities will sooner or later begin to breed extremism.

If someone hates you and wants to kill you, would it not be prudent to at least try to figure out why? Knowledge is after all power.

[ButterflyBlood]

121. While there are elements of truth to this...

Do you honestly think if the US competely reformed tommorow Osama bin Laden would change his mind? He'd end his crusade and become dedicated to peaceful co-existance. Not to mention he's one of the few elites who initially benefited from such a situation.

The fact are, there are religious nutjobs that want to kill us just because they are religious nutjobs. Not very many, but it didn't take very many to fly planes into the World Trade Center.

[ronnie624]

122. No, Osama bin Laden would not change his mind

if the U.S. reformed tomorrow. However, it would be far more difficult for him to recruit followers. Many of his legions after all probably come from countries that are directly affected by our economic policies as well as our bombs.

[Imperialism Inc.]

125. Will you be telling us next how the

crusades were justified to subdue the violent muslim extremists?

I mean, I'm no big fan of religion in general but that doesn't mean one has to be a bigot.

[The Straight Story]

119. Extresism is something that others are responsible for?

Where do we draw the line in this sand? There are many folks who are not 'extremists' - why do we coddle those that are and blame the victims?

If folks have an issue with a particular person why fly planes into a building full of people unrelated to it (not to mention the folks on the plane had nothing to do with it)?

In the end, the folks doing the crime are the ones responsible for it. I have been wronged and screwed over many times in my life but I don't take it out on people not related to it.

[Bridget Burke]

37. The public CAN be blamed for being ignorant.

Yes, our education system needs help. But, once you learn to read, you become responsible for supplementing your own education. That includes not letting "publicity" shape your view of the world.

I'm sure you would agree.

[VegasWolf]

52. But educating oneself takes WORK and TIME!!! nt

[Zhade]

63. Don't forget "desire not to be a racist moron".

VERY important part of the equation.

[ronnie624]

70. Many have indeed been bamboozled

by three decades of endless propaganda portraying Muslims as violent and extreme along with the equally nonsensical mythology which has convinced many of us that we are benevolent and good and we give lots of "aid" to other countries and when we carpet bomb cities we're doing it for their own good; to stop the spread of "communism" or "Islamic extremism"

If fewer people used television and movies as a primary source of information our society would be much better informed. I'm sure you would agree.

[brentspeak]

94. s/d

s/d

[brentspeak]

95. So like, it's the people's fault that they witnessed

the destruction of the WTC and scenes of our fellow citizens leaping to their deaths. And it's their fault they didn't turn off the TV when terrorists murdered the Israeli athletes in 1972. Plus, it must have been unfair for people to read the front page with news of the Lockerbie airplane bombing, and to sneak a peak at the evening news when the WTC was bombed in '93. Plus, the people should have deleted from their minds the memory of 400 Americans being held hostage by the Iranians, as well as all the countless other incidents of spectacular airplane hijackings and suicide bombings that have been committed by Islamic extremists all around the world for over thirty years.

All this time, I never realized that it's been the American people's (and much of the rest of the world's) fault that Islam is thought to be dominated by violent nutcases.

:freak:

[ronnie624]

105. Yet again more catapulting of the propaganda.

Your post is nothing more than an attempt to portray all muslims as violent extremists. When will you crack a book or two and learn about your own government's involvement in creating the current extremist elements within modern Islam?

[muriel_volestrangler]

21. They did, didn't they?

31% had a favorable impression of Christian Fundamentalist religions, and exactly the same percentage had an unfavorable one.

[mallard]

11. Re: That's really the better outlook ...

... for bridging relationships across the war lines.

Where would the ant-Muslim camp be without misplaced blame for 9/11 and wars of invasion to blow off as democracy campaigning?

Getting people killed and taking over thier land does tend to create tensions, does push populations back to fundamental opposition.

Citing examples of how badly Muslims react to unnecesary war waged against them is very trendy right now.

[wtmusic]

72. A push poll already

and the elections are still 7 months away! :silly:

[HuffleClaw]

4. well, DUH.

the administration and media (especially the usual talk radio folks) have been demonizing islam for years.

[Oversea Visitor]

7. Right

same type of CANS of WORMS" Hilter open
with ANTI JEWS blind hate

Bush like it or not own this new
"CANS of WORMS"
ANTI MUSLIMS blind hate

But he also own some very special "CANS of WORMS"
ANTI AMERICANS hate
ANTI BUSH pure hate

What a future he create
Sicko making more hate for a sicko world.

[adriennui]

59. islam has demonized itself

decades of killing innocents in the name of allah can be somewhat prejudicial. unfortunately, the extemists of all religions encourage stereotypes.

[LynnTheDem]

75. LOL!

Amazing.

[ronnie624]

88. Some seem to have no idea

how much in need they are of a history lesson or two.

[LynnTheDem]

109. Ain't that the truth.

Oy.

[mallard]

126. Re: "islam has demonized itself"

Considering how the war of 'choice' and occupation of Iraq have turned a peaceful and fairly benign country into a terror-driven civil war scene - on the one hand - and how we might not like Americans being demonized in general by these atrocious outcomes our country's war has produced - isn't it possibly that the theme of what's wrong with Muslims is a tad off the mark for choice of preferred blame?

[movonne]

8. I am having a sinking perception of Christianity..

[IndianaGreen]

17. Me too!

I see no difference between the Christian Jihadists from their Muslim and Jewish counterparts, they are all crazy and they will get us all killed.

[INDIA]

83. Come on....

"I see no difference between the Christian Jihadists from their Muslim and Jewish counterparts,"


That just isn't reality and you know it. I can't even argue with you if you think that. Please read my above posts at the top of the thread.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

10. Bullshit poll designed to inflame those easily inflamed.

[ButterflyBlood]

12. This should hardly come as a suprise

after the cartoon rioting and the case to eexcute the guy who converted to Christianity.

[genieroze]

15. It beat Scientology and almost tied the Mormons.

[fun n serious]

16. I can't stomach the hypocrisy

In Islam and all religions. They all turn me off.

[DemExpat]

18. My perception of all organized religions was sunk many years ago.

Current events only verify my view.

:nuke:

DemEx

[LynnTheDem]

19. Fewer than 1 in 5... well then they are NOT informed.

Americans uninformed...gee what a surprise.

[NJmaverick]

23. Religion is just a tool

It's like a hammer. When properly used it can create a beautiful house, when misused it can kill. Religion is exactly the same way.

[bdamomma]

29. or too much religion

can make a person stupid.

[Name removed]

24. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[twaddler01]

25. Because you know, Islam = Terrorism

Oh wait, I mean "terah-ism"

:sarcasm:

[supernova]

26. Like people in the arabic world care what Americans think?

What is this poll supposed to accomplish? Are Americans going to go right out and learn more about the Islamic world? Probably not.

Are Middle Easterners going to try to learn more about Americans that they don't already know? Probably not.

I think it just means more war. The gulf is too great. :-(

[Bridget Burke]

43. No--this just demonstrates American ignorance.

So the fools will agree that "the gulf is too great" & support the invasion of any Muslim country (with oil).

Note: Not everyone in the Middle East is Muslim. And Islam has many adherents outside the Middle East.

[lynne]

27. Mmmm . . . I'm guessing this probably isn't the thread -

- to wish everyone a Blessed Maundy Thursday.

[0007]

28. And accordingly Islam is the faster growing religion in the world.

[Igel]

38. And it's not because of conversions.

There are some, but fewer than the Sa'udis would like people to think the number entails.

[ShortnFiery]

124. Yes, but this little pissant PSYOPS headline will reverse everything!

:sarcasm:

[TexasLawyer]

31. Look at the books that they're reading

at least, the ones who CAN read. This is one of the Human Events "Best Sellers". I joined some right-wing groups just to see what they're up to, and I receive almost daily e-mails hawking this kind of trash.

There is a clear anti-Islam PR campaign being waged. By the way, Human Events is affiliated with Regnery Press, of "swift-boat" fame. So you know there's an RNC connection.


http://www.hebookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c6805



REVEALED, at long last: the whole "politically incorrect" truth about Islam's violent teachings, bloody history, backward culture, and morally depraved founder

PLUS: Why the Crusades were justified wars of Christian self-defense against centuries of Muslim aggression
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)
by Robert Spencer

Exclusive hardcover edition -- not available in stores!

When PC propagandists assure us that jihadist terror doesn't reflect "true," "peaceful" Islam, they're not only wrong, they're dangerous -- because they lull America and the West into letting their guard down against their mortal enemy.

And not only do self-appointed "experts" lie elaborately and persistently about Islam -- they have also replaced the truth about Christian Europe and the Crusades with an all-pervasive historical fantasy that is designed to make you ashamed of your own culture and heritage -- and thus less determined to defend it. But now there's a remedy: in The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades), Robert Spencer reveals all the disturbing facts about Islam and its murderous hostility to the West that other books ignore, soft-pedal -- or simply lie about.

[ShortnFiery]

34. Let me guess? Authors are Richard Perle, Ann Coulter and Karen Hughes?

[LynnTheDem]

76. "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders, and convert them

to Christianity" -ann coulter, "christian".

Jesus himself would have said that.

If Jesus had been a MFing nasty POS rightwingnut, that is.

[TexasLawyer]

32. Also K-ing and R-ing

because this is important to know about.

[stepnw1f]

35. Thanks to the RW Bigot Media Machine

such as Fox

[mvd]

44. Extremism on both sides is bad

Americans don't get this enough. Bush is an extreme Christian, while Iran (for example), has an Islamic extremist. Notice that Bush has done more destruction than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - kind of defeats the perception I'd say.

[no name no slogan]

45. Actually, Iran ISN'T that extremist

If you're looking for extreme, look to the Saudis. The rhetoric of a government official does not necessarily reflect the views of the religion practiced by its people.

While Iran's brand of Shi'ism may seem extreme to Americans, it is quite liberal to that practiced by many "mainstream" Sunnis in other Muslim countries. In fact, women have more rights in Iran than they do in much of the Arab world.

[mvd]

48. I was focusing on the leader

Many in the U.S. also aren't as extreme as Bush is.. yet it seems the extremists set the policy.

[adriennui]

60. iranians aren't arabic

so there are cultural differences in the practice of islam. wahabbis in saudi arabia set the standard for extremism. case in point....forcing schoolgirls to return to a buning school to their death because they wern't properly veiled.

[no name no slogan]

61. Yes, they are Persians

with a long history that predates Islam (and Rome, for that matter). I was merely pointing out that Iran's brand of Islam is not nearly as extreme as that practiced in other Muslim or Arab countries.

[adriennui]

81. i agree

the iranians (persians) speak farsi and are in no way related to muslim practicing arab countries...

[Endangered Specie]

54. So... I would have voted unfavorable

for OTHER religions too.

[Zhade]

62. Or: "Misleading Poll Shows More Ignorance, Racism Regarding Muslims"

Hey, it's a way more accurate headline.

[progressivebydesign]

64. When the govt & media released the last 4 lines of the flight 93 tape..

you knew that this would be inflammatory... I almost wonder if that type of reporting was for that purpose, to further demonize Islam. After an apparently heart wrenching tape of the flight 93's demise, the last four lines.. were 'allah is the greatest', repeated until the plane crashed. I sometimes wonder if the entire spectacle of that trial and the release of the tape was somehow tied into the administration's lackluster performance in Iraq and the need to refuel the hatred and fear. A senior legal person on the 9/11 Comission had similar doubts about the trial... wondering why he was on trial as a public spectacle, while others who were directly culpable were either still at large, or not brought to trial so publicly.

It's serves the admin and the psycho christian leaders to demonize Islam. When my daughter's school had a forum on different issues regarding religion, many of the kids mentioned that they thought the Islamic people coming would be "terrorists". The zealots who are perpetuating murder in the name of Islam are responsible for some of this, and the people that feed the flames for their own use, share the rest.

[ozone_man]

68. Still, there are some religions

that are less tolerant than others, Islam, being one of them. Other religions have seen moderation over the years. Even Buddhism before 1950 was brutally oppressive, before theocratic Tibet was "liberated", and Buddhism became popular in the West. Christianity went through even more brutal phases like the Crusades or the Inquisition. Unfortunately, Islam hasn't really changed much by comparison. It is still a medieval religion. How to modernize it is a good question. Religion is slow to change because it doesn't allow criticism, it relies on faith and not reason. Islam may be particularly unassailable, since there are clear punishments for nonbelievers.

But I hear what you're saying about the way that the administration and RW Christians use this to their advantage and abhor that tactic as I do the illegal, racist, and, at a more subtle level, religious war that we are involved in. Personally, I think the world's religious past must gradually come to a close. It's time to move beyond ancient myths into the modern world. They will all eventually be considered mythology in the same way that we think of Greek and Roman mythology. After all, this is how they evolved in the first place, from pagan myths.

The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.
-- Thomas Jefferson

[Bridget Burke]

79. Islam is a newer faith than Christianity....

And it's definitely newer than Buddhism. Let the Muslims decide how to "modernize" their faith. The religion is not monolithic. (You think there were no punishments for non believing Christians 600 years ago? By then, the Reformation had begun. So several different churches punished several different groups of Christians.)

Neither is Buddhism monolithic. Tibetan Buddhism is only one variant--besides, the Chinese have "Liberated" the people of Tibet.

Whether or not people will have religion in the future is not up to you. The old myths & legends still have power--even for those who do not really "believe" in them. Buddhism will probably survive--at its heart is NO "God Concept." Many Christians still try to follow the ideas of Jesus--whether they are sayings from one teacher or several, conflated by history. And what of the Pagans?

[ozone_man]

89. But we may not have another 100 years

let alone 500 years to wait for it to modernize. Islam is still a medieval religion, and so it's comparable to Christianity during that era. Yet we are in an era with nuclear weapons, so religous delusions that are acted on are particularly dangerous. I think Islam has two problems, one being that it hasn't changed much from medieval times, but also, that it's intolerant of change. Just take a look at how many passages that refer to heretics and apostates there are in the Koran.

Don't get me wrong, fundamental Christianity is as bad, but in other ways, like the alliance with the neocons, hastening evironmental destruction in wait for the end times.

Buddhism will probably survive--at its heart is NO "God Concept."

I couldn't agree more. Buddhism is a religion compatible with the future, since it is more of a philosophy and not an acceptance by blind faith.

Many Christians still try to follow the ideas of Jesus--whether they are sayings from one teacher or several, conflated by history.

Jesus definitely had some great philosophy. Unfortunately that's not what most Christians practice. Rather it's Pauline Christianity. A wrathful god and an intolerant religion.

And what of the Pagans?

I don't know, what of the Pagans? :) The thing I admire about the Pagans was their reverance for nature. Their's was an Earth centered religion. With the monotheistic concepts of heaven providing the rewards that are not provided for in life on Earth, the respect for the Earth has diminished. So, I think we need to adopt some of the environmental reverance of the Pagans without making gods out the environment. Sort of a deep ecology. How else are we going to survive as a planet past this century?

[Bridget Burke]

98. So you think we should kill all the Muslims who refuse to convert?

Islam is NOT monolithic.

[Pavulon]

104. Tolerance

does not include accepting intolerance. I refuse to accept to accept any religious leader of any faith advocating violence or the overthrow of the government.

Islam would be moot were we not dependant on oil. The major islamic nations would resemble Chad, The Congo, and other failed states.

[ozone_man]

115. "Toleration is not the opposite of Intolerance,

but is the counterfeit of it. Both are despotisms. The one assumes to itself the right of withholding Liberty of Conscience, and the other of granting it."
- Thomas Paine

[ozone_man]

106. Convert to what?

No, I'm saying that religion in general is intolerant, meaning that it doesn't tolerate criticism, and therefore it resists change. You mentioned Buddhism, which by contrast, does allow itself to change, because it is more of a philosophy then a religion. But during the feudal, theocratic period of Tibet, which ended fairly recently, it wasn't such a kind religion at all.

I think it will be much more difficult for Islam to become a modern religion, not that it can't happen. I don't have any magic recipe for success, just saying that there is a problem. Personally, I think the internet will go a long way toward providing information to these cultures, as will education and prosperity in general. The change will have to come from the people ultimately, they will have to demand change. The change won't come from the theocracy leaders. But the same is true in our country, under the sort of theocracy that it has become. We have to demand change.

But I also think there is a religous motive to our war over there, sort of in the same light as the Crusades, but at a more subtle level. I think it's more about financial motives though (oil), like the Crusades, but underneath, there are racial and religous motives.

In the long run, I think most religions will be considered myths like the other ancient mythologies, but it will run it's course.

[adigal]

65. How people can say Islam encourages violence

and then go to Christian/Catholic mass the next morning, and pray for the victory of the American military in destroying our enemies, and killing them all, and not see a disconnect there blows me away. Right or wrong, we encourage violence just like the Muslim nations do.

[lynne]

78. There seems to be a common misconception -

- that Christian's pray to destroy, defeat, etc. their "enemies". As a Christian who attends and participates in church weekly, I can honestly say that I have NEVER heard any prayer to destroy, defeat, kill anyone nor any mention of "enemies".

Prayers have always been for wisdom, guidance and - most of all - Peace. I have no doubt that there are extremists in all religions who may pray to kill their enemies but I think we all know that extremists are the minority and are not reflective of religion as a whole.

[leesa]

67. Well, our media has only been hyping this propaganda for the last thirty

years...takes time to make a devil.

[clyrc]

71. I live in the Middle East

I know many, many, moderate, peace loving Muslims. It makes me furious when I see anyone trying to tell me that all Muslims are violent and intolerant. I know better.

[onager]

73. I'm in Egypt right now.

And agree with you...and I'm an atheist!

For several months I've been living in Alexandria and working way out in the Nile Delta. Twice a day I commute thru a string of little Egyptian farm villages where life has changed very little in the past millenium, I suspect. The residents are some of the most generous and kind people I've ever met, and my job has taken me all over the world.

I don't fear the Muslims over here any more than I fear driving thru little American farm villages, which feature 27 different varieties of Xian churches...some of them, no doubt, Fundie churches preaching fanatical hatred of "non-believers" like myself.

There's another meme that keeps popping up here on DU, about Muslims "being overdue for a Renaissance" and "following their crazy all-powerful leaders."

The "Renaissance" meme is pretty funny, considering a recent find in the nation of India. IIRC, these were missing works of Aristotle, probably not seen since Xian fanatics destroyed the Alexandria Library around the Fourth Century CE. (Around the same time as another Victory For Christ here in Alexandria: fanatical Xian monks from the Wadi Natrun monastery dragged the mathematician/philosopher/Uppity Woman Hypatia out of her chariot and hacked her to pieces.)

Those translations of Aristotle were written in Arabic, and date from the time when Europe was going thru that little spell of religious enthusiasm most of us know as "the Dark Ages."

As for "all-powerful leaders," Islam really doesn't have any. Those Instant Experts on TV talk about how Al-Queda wants to "restore the caliphate" but WHICH caliphate? AFAIK, and I may be wrong, Islam hasn't had an El Supremo caliph since about the 13th century, when the Mongols flattened Baghdad. An event that, according to some historians, traumatized Muslims so badly that they turned inward, to the fundamentalism that is still with us today.

The British should have learned this lesson when they were colonizing the Middle East during WWI. They believed the head of the Ottoman Empire also served as the "Pope" of Islam.

Their idea was to overthrow that Empire with a fellow they discovered in Saudi Arabia--King Abdul Aziz bin Sa'ud, whose family is still running Arabia and, of course, the Bush family.

When the British started ranting about making him the Caliph, Abdul-Aziz informed them that he was a Wahhabi Muslim. They only recognize the first four caliphs after the Prophet Mohammed, and the last one of them had died about a thousand years ago.

[Pavulon]

87. I too have visited muslim nations

While I find the majority of people kind there are those who preach hatred from STATE sponsored and controlled mosques.

NY times

governments contributing to Islamic extremism and cited Egypt, where, the Post said, President Hosni Mubarak "props himself up with $2 billion a year in U.S. aid while allowing and even encouraging state-controlled clerics and the media to promote the anti-Western, anti-modern and anti-Jewish propaganda of the Islamic extremists."

It seems the Egyptians' response came via two government-controlled newspapers, Al Ahram and Al Akhbar, which railed against the Post in the usual fashion, with the editor of Al Akhbar, Galal Dewidar (a government employee, the Post points out), asserting that not only do "American media submit to the directives of the Jewish lobby," but their "identity is American in theory but Zionist in practice." The Post quotes him as adding: "We have begun to view these mouthpieces as a media apparatus in the pay of . . . the Zionist organizations and the apparatuses working clandestinely." The Post editorial was one of the roundest ripostes to the Egyptian anti-Semites in years.

Intolerance

Grand Imam Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi of al-Azhar University, the world’s highest Sunni Muslim seat of learning, said the Danish prime minister must apologise for the drawings and further demanded that the world’s religious leaders, including him and Pope Benedict XVI, meet to write a law that “condemns insulting any religion, including the Holy Scriptures and the prophets.”

He said the United Nation should impose the law on all countries.

[LynnTheDem]

77. Hitler was a Christian. So was Timothy McVeigh.

Oops sorry, we're supposed to be demonizing Islam, not Christianity, my bad.

:eyes:

[ButterflyBlood]

93. No, Hitler was a pagan and McVeigh was an agnostic

Both were raised Christian, but not practicing. And besides that, neither one committed their crimes in the name of Christianity.

And even if they did, it's not relevant to the topic at hand.

[ozone_man]

96. Whether or not Hitler was a Christian

is probably less important than the role Christianity played in leading up to the Holocaust. At the very least Hitler understood fully how to use Christianity to rally the troops so to speak. And that is the real danger isn't it? That peaople are willing to fight for God.


http://www.nobeliefs.com/nazis.htm

Here's a good site to understand how medieval antisemitism fostered by the Catholic church and later by the Luther grew into racial antisemitism in Germany. I doubt his would have happened were it not for Luther.

Medieval Sourcebook:
Martin Luther (1483-1546):
On the Jews and Their Lies, 1543

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

At the beginning of his career it is often said that Luther was apparently sympathetic to Jewish resistance to the Catholic Church. He wrote, early in his career:

The Jews are blood-relations of our Lord; if it were proper to boast of flesh and blood, the Jews belong more to Christ than we. I beg, therefore, my dear Papist, if you become tired of abusing me as a heretic, that you begin to revile me as a Jew.

However, sometime before 1517, in his Letters to Spalatin, we can already see that Luther's hatred of Jews, best seen in tis 1543 letter, was not some affectation of old age, but was present very early on. Luther expected Jews to convert to his purified Christianity. When they did not, he turned violently against them.

It is impossible for modern people to read the horrible passages below and not to think of the burning of synagogues in November 1938 on Krystalnacht. Nor would one wish to excuse Luther for this text.

A number of points must, however, be made. The most important concerns the language used. Luther used violent and vulgar language throughout his career: he was not a man to say "manure" when he meant "shit". We do not expect religious figures to use this sort of language in the modern world, but it was not uncommon in the early 16th century. Second, although Luther's comments seem to be proto-Nazi, they are better seen as part of tradition of Medieval Christian anti-semitism. While there is little doubt that Christian anti-Semitism laid the social and cultural basis for modern anti-Semitism, modern anti-Semitism does differ in being based on pseud-scientific notions of race. The Nazis imprisoned and killed Jews who had converted to Christianity: Luther would have welcomed them.

None of this justifies what follows, but it may help to comprehend what is being written here.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/1543-Luther-JewsandLies-full.html

[ButterflyBlood]

101. I agree with you on the basic point, but this simply shows another example

of one using religion as yet another tool to fulfill their means rather than committing crimes in the name of religion. Hitler is more comparable to Saddam, who did use Islamic justification to some extent (such as attacking the Saudi royals as illegitimate guardians of Mecca and Medina) but he most certainly was not too religious, and was rather disliked by most Islamic extremists.

As for the Luther/Nazi connections, the Nazis were more influenced by Tsarist anti-semetic propaganda (the source of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion). Luther might have played a factor, but his anti-Semetism was largely seperated from his religion. He's just a guy who happens to be both a prominent religious leader and prominent anti-Semite. One wouldn't blame the Catholic Church for all child molestors.

[ozone_man]

112. I'm sure there were several causes

but the underlying root cause was religious antisemitism. From this grew political and ultimately racial antisemitism. So, a thousand years of religious antisemitism took it's toll.

Equally important though was how Hitler used the Christian church, Catholic and Protestant, as a means of control. That is the real danger to religion, a mind control vehicle.

An important change in Christian antisemitism occurred after Spain expelled all Jews in 1492. At the time, Jews who converted to Christianity were allowed to remain and many took advantage of the opportunity. Laws which once restricted their movement and ability to engage in commerce were lifted and they eagarly pursued their new opportunities, with many entering some of the highest reaches of Spanish society.

Of course, this produced no small measure of resentment and envy among other Spanish Christians and in order to restore the status quo, the government passed laws restricting the actions of these converts - laws which defined people based upon whether or not they had "pure blood." Thus, for the first time, Jews were defined not by their religion but rather as a biological group whose "blood" rendered them impure and inelligible for the same rights and privileges as other members of society. These concepts would later become key ingredients in the racial and biological antisemitism of modern Europe, culminating in the Holocaust at the hands of Nazis in Germany.

http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/judaism/bldef_antisemitism.htm

[LynnTheDem]

108. Gott mit uns.

[Pavulon]

84. Geopolitical distribution

Islam is centralized in developing nations. My definition of developing is not financial, but based on my own criteria. Majority muslim countries tend to be poor. Not all but the majority.

Saudi Arabia is developing, they are wealthy but have a minimal civil rights. Other countries like Oman and the OAE are tolerant.

Turkey is the only Islamic state that practices a basic separation of church and state.

Islam has no central structure. So the idiots are free to preach what they like and not be thrown out. Those preaching against the west and tolerance are inciting murder.

Islam is not preached as tolerant in many places and used as a tool to control populations.

Islam needs a reformation.

[Bridget Burke]

99. Well, Islam will not change to suit you.

It will change as its adherents wish.

[Pavulon]

102. Killing christians on good friday..

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060414/wl_afp/egyptcoptschurch_060414153332


It can reform or nations will place themselves into positions they can not maintain.

It's adherents are human. Humans have the ability to reform and grow, to join the modern world or live beside it.


Any one teaching the concept of western domination by islam

Omar Ahmad (Click Photo)

Co-founder of the Council on American-Islamic Relations

President and CEO of Silicon Expert Technologies. A Palestinian who grew up in a refugee camp in Jordan.



"Those who stay in America should be open to society without melting, keeping Mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam. If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam ... Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth." - Omar Ahmad

Ibrahim Hooper (Click Photo)
CAIR Spokesperson

"CAIR does not support these groups publicly."
(Hooper comments on CAIR's record of supporting Hamas,
Hezbullah and other official terrorist groups)



"I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future...But I'm not going to do anything violent to promote that. I'm going to do it through education."
- Ibrahim Hooper

is sadly mistaken. The above is the reason Americans are questioning Islam. Until this is answered I reserve judgment. In my opinion this statement falls under "and domestic".

This is CAIR a "mainstream" group. They are playing a zero sum game.

[Bridget Burke]

111. So grab your guns....

And join the Crusade.

[Pavulon]

118. Nice inflammatory

rhetoric. did you actually read what I posted? or just cop out with that post?

[Violet_Crumble]

123. I read it and the comment was well-deserved...

n/t

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.