Tag Archives: muslim

Oh, You’re Muslim? Here You Go!

When a NYC cabdriver picked up a fare and was asked if he was Muslim, he wasn't expecting what came next. Michael Enright, 21, of Brewster, NY allegedly hailed a cab around 1815 (6:15 pm) on Tuesday (8/24/2010). Enright asked the driver, Ahmed Sharif, 43, if he was Muslim. When Sharif replied yes, Enright brandished a knife. Cutting Sharif in the face, lip, and arm. It seems Enright was intoxicated during the assault. Enright, friendly at first, yelled ''Assalami Alakium, consider this a check-point!'' and slashed Sharif's neck. '' I feel very sad. I have been here 25 years, I have driven a taxi for 15 years. All 4 of my children were born here.'' says Sharif. Authorities said there appears to be no connection between the assault and the Islamic Center near Ground Zero. Enright faces charges of attemped murder as a hate crime, 1st degree assault, aggravated harrasment, and criminal possession of a weapon. added by: thetrimsmith

NYT Accuses Mosque Protesters of Fomenting Muslim Extremism, Reveals Own Manhattan-Centric Snobbery

Still more slanted coverage in the New York Times of the controversy over a proposed mosque at Ground Zero: First in Saturday’s story by intelligence reporter Scott Shane, fretting that public opposition voiced to the speedy approval and building of a giant Islamic cultural center topped by a mosque two blocks from Ground Zero would somehow make radical Muslim extremists, who despise the very existence of America, hate the U.S. even more: ” Anti-Islam Protest in U.S. Bolsters Extremists, Experts Say ” (Note: This article was compiled from three separate articles prepared for Times Watch ). Some counterterrorism experts say the anti-Muslim sentiment that has saturated the airwaves and blogs in the debate over plans for an Islamic center near ground zero in Lower Manhattan is playing into the hands of extremists by bolstering their claims that the United States is hostile to Islam. Opposition to the center by prominent politicians and other public figures in the United States has been covered extensively by the news media in Muslim countries. At a time of concern about radicalization of young Muslims in the West, it risks adding new fuel to Al Qaeda’s claim that Islam is under attack by the West and must be defended with violence, some specialists on Islamic militancy say. For confirmation of his slanted premise, Shane went to an unlabeled center-left policy group, New America Foundation. “I know people in this debate don’t intend it, but there are consequences for these kinds of remarks,” said Brian Fishman, who studies terrorism for the New America Foundation here. He said that Anwar al-Awlaki, an American-born cleric hiding in Yemen who has been linked to several terrorist plots, has been arguing for months in Web speeches and in a new Qaeda magazine that American Muslims face a dark future of ever-worsening discrimination and vilification. “When the rhetoric is so inflammatory that it serves the interests of a jihadi recruiter like Awlaki, politicians need to be called on it,” Mr. Fishman said. Shane even suggested former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was fomenting radicalism with his opposition to the mosque: Mr. Gingrich, the former House speaker and a potential 2012 presidential candidate, said in a Fox News interview that “Nazis don’t have the right to put up a sign next to the Holocaust museum in Washington,” a comment that drew criticism for appearing to equate those proposing the Islamic center with Nazis. Asked about the view that such remarks could fuel radicalism , Mr. Gingrich sent an e-mail response on Friday that did not directly address his critics but said that “Americans must learn to tell the truth about radical Islamists while being supportive of and inclusive of moderate Muslims who live in the modern world, respect women’s rights, reject medieval punishment and defend American laws and the American Constitution.” He added that he believed “it is possible to be a deeply religious Muslim and a patriotic American.” Sigh. What doesn’t “fuel radicalism” these days, in the view of America-bashers? Besides, Gingrich isn’t the only prominent political name to come out against the project — several Democrats have as well. Yet the Times has made only muted acknowledgment of the inconvenient fact that prominent Democrats like New York Gov. David Paterson, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, and former DNC chairman Howard Dean have come out against building the Islamic center so close to ground zero, with Dean calling it “a real affront to the people who lost their lives” on 9-11. Is Democrat Dean also “fueling radicalism”? Besides the knee-jerk fretting over “fueling radicalism,” there’s a healthy dose of Manhattan-centric snobbery in the paper’s attitude toward opponents of the mosque, who obviously have no clue about what’s really going on. About four minutes from the end of an August 19 ” Political Points ” podcast at nytimes.com, reporter Sheryl Gay Stolberg took up discussion of the controversial plan to build a mosque near Ground Zero, explaining how the hicks in the sticks who disapprove of the plan, don’t know what’s going on, unlike sophisticated Manhattanites (who actually may not like it much either). Stolberg: “Here’s another reason for the disconnect. I think, in New York, especially in Manhattan, people realize that Muslims live and work in Lower Manhattan , in the area where they’re seeking to build this mosque and community center, which would also include a fitness center where young people could play basketball or swim or what have you. Out in the country, the news coverage has not been as intense, there are fewer details and it allows for the debate to be reduced to its essence, boiled down to a few words: Mosque at Ground Zero. And those words have become inflammatory around the country and I think the nuances is somewhat lost, frankly.” And a Tuesday column by metro writer Clyde Haberman in support (naturally) of the mosque included this unpleasant nativist sniffing: Obscured in the fog of this culture war are a few New York realities, perhaps not fully appreciated by outsiders like Mr. Gingrich of Georgia or Sarah Palin of Alaska . Two blocks may seem like nothing to a non-New Yorker. But anyone who lives or works in Manhattan knows that this distance can be significant. Two blocks is equivalent to several miles in other cities or in the suburbs. Your dry cleaner moves two blocks, and it’s so long, pal. He’ll never see you again. He might as well have relocated to Yonkers.

Read the original here:
NYT Accuses Mosque Protesters of Fomenting Muslim Extremism, Reveals Own Manhattan-Centric Snobbery

Spying on Free Speech Nearly At Cold War Level

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) released numerous reports of increased government spying on American citizens. Once upon an unhappy time, U.S. law enforcement agencies, from the FBI to local police, had a history of political spying during the Cold War. The ACLU said that the old political spying tendencies are running high again. Individuals and groups are being monitored and harassed for “little more than peacefully exercising their First Amendment rights.” In Georgia, among seven spying reports the ACLU uncovered, a vegetarian activist was arrested for writing down the license plate of a Department of Homeland Security agent who had been photographing her and others during a peaceful protest outside a Honey Baked Ham store. An intelligence bulletin, from a DHS-supported North Central Texas Fusion System, was distributed to over 100 different agencies. It described a “purported conspiracy between Muslim civil rights organizations, lobbying groups, the anti-war movement, a former U.S. Congresswoman, the U.S. Treasury Department, and hip hop bands to spread tolerance in the U.S.” Once you unfortunately land on some kind of watchlist, it's unlikely you will ever have your name removed. One example was a Kentucky minister who had never been arrested, had never been charged with a crime, and had never participated in a protest. During a sightseeing trip, he was detained by Canadian border officials. The ministered learned he was under federal scrutiny because, immediately after September 11, he ordered books over the Internet about the Islamic religion, like the Koran, to help his congregation better understand that faith. Does this make you sick or does it make you mad? Does this even slightly sound like America, the land of the free? ********* Follow the link to see a more examples. added by: toyotabedzrock

WaPo Sees ‘Anti-Muslim’ Sentiment in Opposition to Tennessee Mosque; Reporter Omits Zoning, Traffic Concerns of Critics

“Nowhere near Ground Zero, but no more welcome: Outcry over mosque proposals in Tennessee and elsewhere could be a sign of rising anti-Muslim sentiment across the country.” With those words, the front page headline* and subheader for an August 23 Washington Post story by Annie Gowen conflated the controversy over the Ground Zero mosque with opposition to other mosques across the fruited plain, namely one planned for Murfreesboro, Tennessee, from where Gowen filed her story.  Gowen waited until 27th pragraph in the 41-paragraph story to introduce the man spearheading the opposition, “a stocky 44-year-old correctional officer named Kevin Fisher” who “spent his formative years in Buffalo, where a home-grown terrorist cell of Yemeni Americans was uncovered in 2002.” Yet long before she ever got around to quoting Fisher, Gowen set out to portray the opposition to the mosque as the work of intolerant, ignorant rednecks. “It shouldn’t be surprising that there’s a negative reaction to this mosque…. [Y]ou can connect it to this global media event in New York, it just reinforces this siege mentality local residents have,” Gowen quoted Richard Lloyd of Vanderbilt University in paragraph 16. In the preceding paragraph, Gowen cited a recent Pew poll that found one in five Americans believe Barack Obama is a Muslim as one reason for why “the change in tone” regarding Muslim Americans has been “striking” according to “religious scholars and other experts.” When Gowen finally got around to quoting Fisher, she left a lot to be desired in terms of capturing the subject’s opposition to the proposed mosque. For example, Gowen failed to note that Fisher also opposed a Bible theme park that had been planned for the city and that many of his objections to the mosque are grounded not in fear of radical Islam or sharia law but in zoning and traffic issues pertaining to the 52,900-square foot size of the planned facility. By contrast, Elisabeth Kauffman of Time noted these concerns in her August 19 story : But if some people in Murfreesboro want the county to reject construction of the new mosque, they also wanted — and won — rejection of a proposed Bible theme park in the city. “It isn’t about Islam or religion, it’s about where they want to build,” insists Kevin Fisher, an organizer of opposition to the mosque who says he also opposed the Bible park because developers wanted to build too close to a subdivision. Along with worries over increased traffic on a road he says is already too dangerous, Fisher says the Center’s plans to one day have a cemetery could generate soil and water contamination. Ayash says that while one member of the Center is already buried on the property, without a coffin, “in accord with Islamic custom,” it all took place with county and city approval and within health guidelines. Fisher says that’s not good enough. “Each of my concerns is based on legitimate issues. This has nothing to do with anti-Islam; it’s not racism. I’m African-American, I know what it’s like to be discriminated against. I wouldn’t do that to someone.” Still, Fisher concedes he didn’t object to the construction of the new Grace Baptist Church at the same corner. “That’s a much smaller building [than the 52,000 feet complex the Center might one day build] and they don’t plan a cemetery.” *The online headline for the story is considerably less weighted with the loaded language of the print headline: “Far from Ground Zero, other plans for mosques run into vehement opposition.”

More:
WaPo Sees ‘Anti-Muslim’ Sentiment in Opposition to Tennessee Mosque; Reporter Omits Zoning, Traffic Concerns of Critics

The New York Times Rushes to Defend Ground Zero Imam

The New York Times offered still more moral support for the controversial Ground Zero mosque on Sunday’s front-page profile by Anne Barnard of the man behind the building project, imam Feisal Abdul Rauf — ” For Imam in Muslim Center Furor, a Hard Balancing Act .” Among the contributors to the report: Thanassis Cambanis and Mona El-Naggar in Cairo, and Kareem Fahim, Sharaf Mowjood and Jack Begg in New York. Mowjood? As Alana Goodman of the Business and Media Institute reported earlier this month , Sharaf Mowjood is a former lobbyist for the Council on American Islamic Relations, an interest group that strongly supports the mosque. Mowjood coauthored a glowing Dec. 9, 2009 article on the mosque with reporter Ralph Blumenthal and also contributed to a sympathetic story by Barnard August 11 about public relations missteps by the mosque sponsors. Barnard began with an anecdote about a Rauf lecture in Cairo where the imam (with a voice the Times describes as “soft, almost New Agey”) was accused by radical Islamists of being an American agent (a story which of course bolsters Rauf’s moderate credentials). Barnard seemingly took it as her mission to rebut charges of extremism against Rauf. In his absence — he is now on another Middle East speaking tour sponsored by the State Department — a host of allegations have been floated: that he supports terrorism; that his father, who worked at the behest of the Egyptian government, was a militant; that his publicly expressed views mask stealth extremism. Some charges, the available record suggests, are unsupported. Some are simplifications of his ideas. In any case, calling him a jihadist appears even less credible than calling him a United States agent . Barnard insisted that Rauf’s views, in context, placed him “as pro-American within the Muslim world.” He consistently denounces violence . Some of his views on the interplay between terrorism and American foreign policy — or his search for commonalities between Islamic law and this country’s Constitution — have proved jarring to some American ears, but still place him as pro-American within the Muslim world. He devotes himself to befriending Christians and Jews — so much, some Muslim Americans say, that he has lost touch with their own concerns. Barnard set up more criticisms for the sole purpose of rebuttal, and waited until paragraph 34 out of 35 to bring up, defensively, Rauf’s failure to describe Hamas as a terrorist organization. Mr. Abdul Rauf also founded the Shariah Index Project — an effort to formally rate which governments best follow Islamic law. Critics see in it support for Taliban-style Shariah or imposing Islamic law in America. Shariah, though, like Halakha, or Jewish law, has a spectrum of interpretations. The ratings, Ms. Kahn said, measure how well states uphold Shariah’s core principles like rights to life, dignity and education, not Taliban strong points. The imam has written that some Western states unwittingly apply Shariah better than self-styled Islamic states that kill wantonly, stone women and deny education — to him, violations of Shariah. After 9/11, Mr. Abdul Rauf was all over the airwaves denouncing terrorism , urging Muslims to confront its presence among them, and saying that killing civilians violated Islam. He wrote a book, “What’s Right With Islam Is What’s Right With America,” asserting the congruence of American democracy and Islam. That ample public record — interviews, writings, sermons — is now being examined by opponents of the downtown center. Those opponents repeat often that Mr. Abdul Rauf, in one radio interview , refused to describe the Palestinian group that pioneered suicide bombings against Israel, Hamas, as a terrorist organization. In the lengthy interview , Mr. Abdul Rauf clumsily tries to say that people around the globe define terrorism differently and labeling any group would sap his ability to build bridges. He also says: “Targeting civilians is wrong. It is a sin in our religion,” and, “I am a supporter of the state of Israel.”

See the rest here:
The New York Times Rushes to Defend Ground Zero Imam

Washingtonians ‘Furious’ at Opening of ‘Barack Obama Elementary School’

Today marks the first day of school for students in Prince George’s County, Md. The county borders Washington, D.C. to the east and is true blue liberal Democrat in its politics, so it’s no wonder that its brand new elementary school would be named after President Obama. Local NBC affiliate WRC-TV has the story at its website , NBCWashington.com, where at the time I wrote this post, some 69% of readers were “furious” at the news, compared to 8 percent who were “thrilled.” It’s not a scientific survey by any stretch, but it is amusing, particularly given the site’s largely local-to-D.C. readership. “There have been other schools named after President Obama in the country, but this will be a first in his own backyard in the D.C. region,” NBC Washington’s Megan McGrath noted.

Excerpt from:
Washingtonians ‘Furious’ at Opening of ‘Barack Obama Elementary School’

ABC’s Bianna Golodryga Knocks Franklin Graham for ‘Adding to the Confusion’ Over Obama’s Religion

[Updated] Good Morning America co-host Bianna Golodryga on Saturday chided the Reverend Franklin Graham, complaining that ” one of the country’s leading evangelicals is adding to the confusion ” over Barack Obama’s religion. Reporter Jake Tapper then played a clip of Graham being interviewed on CNN: “He was born a Muslim. His father was a Muslim. The seed of Islam is passed through the father. He’s renounced Islam and he has accepted Jesus Christ.” Yet, the New York Times struck a very similar tone in a  May 12, 2008 op-ed . Contributor Edward Luttwak wrote, “As the son of the Muslim father, Senator Obama was born a Muslim under Muslim law as it is universally understood. It makes no difference that, as Senator Obama has written, his father said he renounced his religion. Likewise, under Muslim law based on the Koran his mother’s Christian background is irrelevant.” Both the Times and Graham went on to point out that Obama has embraced Christianity. During his report, Tapper repeated Democratic claims as to who is responsible for some Americans believing the President to be a Muslim: “Those reports, Democrats say, have combined with Muslim roots on the President’s father’s side, an exotic name and political enemies emphasizing his otherness.” The apparent proof of this was then seen in a clip for Fox and Friends’ Steve Doocy: “The first decade of his life, raised by his Muslim father, as a Muslim, and was educated in a Madrassa!” While Good Morning America and other programs have highlighted Graham’s comments, none have mentioned the August 2, 2008 edition of 60 Minutes. On that show, then-candidate Hillary Clinton coyly exclaimed that Obama isn’t a secret Muslim, “as far as I know”: STEVE KROFT: You don’t believe that Senator Obama is a Muslim? Sen. CLINTON: Of course not. I mean, that’s–you know, there is not basis for that. You know, I take him on the basis of what he says . And, you know, there isn’t any reason to doubt that. KROFT: And you said you’d take Senator Obama at his word that he’s not a Muslim. Sen. CLINTON: Right. Right. KROFT: You don’t believe that he’s a Muslim or implying? Right. Sen. CLINTON: No. No. Why would I? No, there is nothing to base that on, as far as I know. A transcript of the August 21 segment, which aired at 7:09am EDT, follows: BIANNA GOLODRYGA: To politics now and the continuing confusion over the President’s religion. President Obama is vacationing in Martha’s Vineyard. But across the country, many Americans still believe incorrectly that he is a Muslim. Now, one of the country’s leading evangelicals is adding to the confusion . Senior White House correspondent Jake Tapper is with the President on Martha’s Vineyard and joins us with more. Jake, this is an issue that continues to haunt the President. JAKE TAPPER: That’s right, Bianna. Not only is the number of Americans who mistakenly believe the President to be a Muslim growing. Now, almost half the American people say they don’t know what religion the President is. This week, the Reverend Franklin Graham told CNN he knew why there was so much apparent confusion about what religion the President is. FRANKLIN GRAHAM: He was born a Muslim. His father was a Muslim. The seed of Islam is passed through the father. He’s renounced Islam and he has accepted Jesus Christ. TAPPER: The President says he has always been a Christian, but the White House has chosen not to make too big a deal out of the confusion. BILL BURTON (White House Deputy Press Secretary): You know, the President is a committed Christian. I think that the American people know that. TAPPER: But that’s not true. Untrue rumors that he’s a Muslim continue to resonate with the public. With a new Time/CNN poll indicating that almost one in four Americans think, wrongly, that he is a Muslim. And nearly half of the public in a Pew poll says they’re not sure what religion the President is. Mr. Obama has made a great effort to discuss his Christian beliefs , as he did on Easter. BARACK OBAMA: What I can do is tell you what draws me to this holy day. What lesson I take from Christ’s sacrifice and what inspires me about the story of the resurrection. TAPPER: Democrats blame widely-circulated conspiratorial e-mails and false reports in the media. [Clip from Fox and Friends.] STEVE DOOCY: The first decade of his life, raised by his Muslim father, as a Muslim, and was educated in a Madrassa! TAPPER: Those reports, Democrats say, have combined with Muslim roots on the President’s father’s side, an exotic name and political enemies emphasizing his otherness . And, Bob and Bianna, political observers say that the confusion has been compounded with the fact that President Obama has yet to pick a congregation in Washington, D.C. with whom to pray. The White house says that’s because the President doesn’t want to inconvenience other parishioners by bringing added security and, of course, the likes of us in the media. Back to you in New York. WOODRUFF: It’s amazing this is still going on. GOLODRYGA: Yeah. You can’t recall any other president that had this issue of what religion they were follow them for so many years. WOODRUFF: For all these years. Unbelievable.

Follow this link:
ABC’s Bianna Golodryga Knocks Franklin Graham for ‘Adding to the Confusion’ Over Obama’s Religion

The Phony Clash of Civilizations

We really are undergoing a clash of civilizations, Ayaan Hirsi Ali says. Hirsi Ali argues that political scientist Samuel Huntington was right when he wrote in 1993 that future conflicts would be between the West and non-Western “civilizations.” For Huntington, the conflict between civilizations—groups united by common languages, cultures, traditions, and religions—was even more fundamental than the ideological conflict that characterized 20th century politics. In particular, Huntington though that what he called the Islamic and Confucian civilizations would inevitably come into conflict with the Western world. Huntington’s suggestion that the Islamic world would inevitably clash with the Western world seemed prophetic to many people after the attacks of September 11. Hirsi Ali says that Huntington’s model “reflects the world as it is—not as we wish it to be.” Muslim countries, she points out, are almost without exception illiberal and undemocratic. Even relatively moderate Turkey has taken a recent turn away from the West (although this turn is in part a reaction to the European Union's reluctance to take a Muslim member). We need, Hirsi Ali suggests, to recognize that with their fundamentally different worldviews West and Islam are and can only be enemies. Hirsi Ali is right to argue that at stake are competing worldviews. She is right too to be critical of the illiberal elements of Muslim societies. It is not clear, however, that the current conflict is really between civilizations—or even what exactly a “civilization” is. As I have written before, it is wrong to frame the conflict as between Islam as a whole and the West. We should not assume, just because our enemies say they are attacking us in the name of Islam, that all Muslims are actually our enemies. Our real enemy is a particular, fundamentalist strain of Islam, one at odds in many ways with the historical mainstream tradition of Islam. This violent fundamentalism is largely a Middle Eastern phenomenon—most Muslims don’t actually live in the Middle East—and probably owes more to recent history of the region than it does to the tenets of Islam. Blaming Islam for the problems of the Middle East is probably not much different than blaming the dysfunction of African countries on the fact that most Africans are black. Nor is it clear that what Hirsi Ali identifies as symptoms of the clash of civilizations—the conflict over the proposed Islamic community center near Ground Zero, the ban on building minarets in Switzerland, and the recent ban on wearing burkas in France—are really evidence of some fundamental conflict. It’s hard to see, for example, how an Islamic community center in lower Manhattan—which may never get built in any case—is much of a threat to anyone. None of these things—mosques, minarets, or burkas—are serious public issues. Rather they are ways of diverting public attention away from the real, difficult problems of governing, which would require hard, unpopular choices. But singling Muslims out as the enemy is, unfortunately, generally very popular. As Sara Silvestri points out, the burka debate in France serves as a welcome distraction from the need to make budget cuts. Here in the U.S. the Ground Zero controversy provides a handy way to attack liberals before the fall midterm elections. None of this means there’s any fundamental conflict with Islam, only that Muslims make a convenient scapegoats. “Islam,” Silvestri says, “has become an easy card to play.” Nor can we protect the values of western civilization by failing live up to them. It’s no more justified to ban the wearing of burkas than it would be to ban the wearing of crosses. While many feel the requirement to wear burkas oppresses women, telling women how they can and can't practice their religion doesn't make them less oppressed. By the same token, we are no more justified opposing the construction of a mosque near Ground Zero than we would be to oppose the construction of a synagogue in a neighborhood where people didn't like Jews. The truth is that the real danger to western civilization doesn't come from outside forces; it is that if we're not careful we will betray its ideals. added by: UtopianSky

WaPo, Editorially a Proponent of Church/State Separation, Worries About Too Few Muslim Chaplains in Va. Prisons

Those familiar with the Washington Post know that the paper is a staunch defender of a very liberal vision of the separation of church and state. For example, the paper’s editorial board was heavily critical of the Supreme Court’s Mojave cross ruling. But when it comes to the supposed dearth of Muslim chaplains at Virginia prisons, Sunday’s Metro section went into full hand-wringing mode. “Inadequate Funds for Chaplains,” complained a subheader for the page B1 story by staffer Kevin Sieff. “In Va., most money goes to Protestant clergy,” another subheadline for the story “Support limited for Muslims in prison”* lamented. Of course, it wasn’t until paragraph 27 that Sieff noted that “[n]either Catholic nor Jewish chaplains have sought funding from corrections officials.” As Sieff explained early in his article, “a 200-year-old interpretation of the state constitution… bars Virginia from doing any faith-based hiring” and “is the only state where prison chaplains are contractors, not state employees.” Sure, “Muslim chaplains could visit correctional facilities to minister to Virginia’s 32,000 inmates,” Sieff explained, “but they received no funds from the state” until a $25,000 grant was given to Muslim Chaplain Services of Virginia last July. “The department [of corrections] has been living in the past. No other state in the country is so far behind the curve,” Sieff quoted the lament of one Larry Coleman of the American Correctional Chaplains Association. Yet nowhere in his 43-paragraph article did Sieff quote a defender of the Old Dominion’s approach to prison chaplaincies. What’s more, Sieff presented Virginia policy as an unwitting accomplice in homegrown terrorism. “In the absence of qualified Muslim religious service providers, inmates can become attracted to radical views and the politico-religious messages coming from other inmates,” Sieff quoted from a study by terrorism experts at George Washington University and the University of Virginia.  Of course, volunteer Muslim chaplains who are not on the state payroll may have more credibility as a moderating influence on Muslim inmates than those who may be seen as government stooges by virtue of their affiliation with the state, but Sieff failed to find anyone who would argue that point.  *The online version’s headline is slightly different, “Limited  spiritual support in Virginia prisons as number of Muslim inmates grows”

See original here:
WaPo, Editorially a Proponent of Church/State Separation, Worries About Too Few Muslim Chaplains in Va. Prisons

Bob Schieffer Blames Internet For Americans Believing Obama Is Muslim

Bob Schieffer on Sunday blamed the internet for the growing number of Americans that think Barack Obama is a Muslim. Namelessly referring to last week’s Pew Research Center poll finding that eighteen percent now believe this, the “Face the Nation” host concluded Sunday’s program saying that “in the internet age, ignorance travels as rapidly as great ideas.” He continued, “Now, not only great minds can find one another and compare notes, so too can the nuts and the perverts and those who are simply looking to validate their prejudices.” And continued, “So despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, a new poll tells us a growing number of Americans, most of them on the right, believe Barack Obama is a Muslim. No doubt, due in part to the fact that stories to that effect have gone viral on the internet” (video follows with transcript and commentary):  BOB SCHIEFFER, HOST: Finally, today on another subject. The greatest advances in the store of human knowledge have always taken place when great minds found themselves in the same place at the same time, as when the Greeks gathered on the hillsides of Athens, when the political geniuses who founded this country came together. The great promise of the internet was that for the first time great minds no longer had to be in close proximity. But what we have also learned now is that in the internet age, ignorance travels as rapidly as great ideas. Now, not only great minds can find one another and compare notes, so too can the nuts and the perverts and those who are simply looking to validate their prejudices. So despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, a new poll tells us a growing number of Americans, most of them on the right, believe Barack Obama is a Muslim. No doubt, due in part to the fact that stories to that effect have gone viral on the internet.   Disagreeing with our leaders is our right. And in truth, part of the fun of being an American. But to suggest the President is a Muslim is absurd. No matter how fervently some who dislike him may wish it so.   The purpose here, though, is not to argue politics but just to underscore how this illustrates the downside of the internet, the only news delivery system we’ve ever had that has no editor. We must always remember that that what we read there may not always be true. Indeed. Ironically, we must also remember that what we see on television may not always be true either. After all, when Schieffer said “a new poll tells us a growing number of Americans, most of them on the right , believe Barack Obama is a Muslim,” this was a nice little sleight of hand to disguise the truth. Here’s what the Pew poll really said : The view that Obama is a Muslim is more widespread among his political opponents than among his backers. Roughly a third of conservative Republicans (34%) say Obama is a Muslim, as do 30% of those who disapprove of Obama’s job performance. But even among many of his supporters and allies, less than half now say Obama is a Christian. Among Democrats, for instance, 46% say Obama is a Christian, down from 55% in March 2009. The belief that Obama is a Muslim has increased most sharply among Republicans (up 14 points since 2009), especially conservative Republicans (up 16 points). But the number of independents who say Obama is a Muslim has also increased significantly (up eight points). There has been little change in the number of Democrats who say Obama is a Muslim, but fewer Democrats today say he is a Christian (down nine points since 2009). As such, what Schieffer said about “most of them on the right” may have been accurate, but it certainly didn’t properly relay the poll’s findings. Maybe more importantly, the Pew survey didn’t ask participants where they get their news from. This means that Schieffer’s accusation that the opinions expressed by respondents he disagrees with must certainly come from the internet is only a speculation without any basis in fact. It appears despite his suggestion to the contrary, ignorance travels pretty quickly on television as well.  

More:
Bob Schieffer Blames Internet For Americans Believing Obama Is Muslim