Poll Finds 23 Percent of Texans Think Obama is Muslim

A University of Texas poll has found that 23 percent of Texans are convinced that Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama is a Muslim. Only 45 percent of the people polled correctly identified Obama as a Protestant Christian. Nationwide, the number of people who believe in the "Secret Muslim Conspiracy" is about the same as those who believe that the moon landing was faked (5-10 percent), which makes the high numbers in Texas unusual.

Comments

How could 63% of people be wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

That doesn't make sense.

-- Proud Texan

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

yur bein eliteist with that arthmitic.

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong?

[onix]

Texas doesn't make sense.

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong?

[joggle]

Boy, that's easy. Let me count the ways:

Most people agreed with Greenspan that derivatives shouldn't be regulated. Greenspan himself no longer has that view (and he's a staunch libertarian).

Most people (in America) thought there were WMDs in Iraq before the invasion.

Most people opposed the $700 billion bailout. I've yet to find a serious economist or capitalist who believes that no action was a valid alternative--we were a hair away from a complete financial halt in the credit/security market which would have quickly halted our entire economy. But, of course, most people haven't taken basic economic courses (much less advanced ones).

And so on. This is why we don't live in a pure Democracy but elect our peers to lead the rest of us for a number of years--the majority isn't always right.

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong?

[Timothy Brownawell]

I've yet to find a serious economist or capitalist who believes that no action was a valid alternative--we were a hair away from a complete financial halt in the credit/security market which would have quickly halted our entire economy. But, of course, most people haven't taken basic economic courses (much less advanced ones).

What about the entire Austrian school, which holds that government meddling is what caused the crisis and more meddling can only make things worse?

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong?

[LingNoi]

So... you're saying that Obama is a muslim?

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong?

[joggle]

That is not a mainstream branch of economics (for a darn good reason). It's for similar reasons that they support that derivatives weren't regulated in the first place.

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong?

[AuMatar]

Quoting the austrian school in serious economic discussions is like quoting creationists or flat-earthers. It's pseudo-science to a degree that real economists are embarrassed by them.

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong?

[joggle]

False dichotomy (and missing the intent of the grandparent poster). The grandparent poster was referring to the people that did not believe Obama believe in the religion he claims to believe in.

While most of the people certainly can be wrong, it doesn't mean the majority is always wrong.

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong?

[Geoffrey.landis]

What about the entire Austrian school, which holds that government meddling is what caused the crisis and more meddling can only make things worse?

That answer does not address the question. The question asked for a specific "serious economist or capitalist", not a generic "school."

Is there a specific person representing this "Austrian school" who is quoted in a reliable source as saying that no action was a valid alternative?

That means, quoted recently, specificly addressing this crisis; not quotes showing they said years ago "well, in the future when the mortgage default crisis is going to cause a liquidity crisis in the world, our theoretical analysis is going to recommend that no action should be taken."

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong?

[Philip K Dickhead]

It's the same percentage in the state that view the Flintstones as a documentary - and know that the world is flat, 'cos things don't fall off of it.

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong?

[Timothy Brownawell]

Quoting the austrian school in serious economic discussions is like quoting creationists or flat-earthers. It's pseudo-science to a degree that real economists are embarrassed by them.

The first part of what the say makes sense, but they use that as a springboard to jump to a lot of apparent nonsense. But then, a lot of mainstream economics is also apparently nonsense. Do you have links that would help show why their nonsense is worse that everyone else's nonsense?

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong?

[Flavio]

Quoting the austrian school in serious economic discussions is like quoting creationists or flat-earthers. It's pseudo-science to a degree that real economists are embarrassed by them.

Liar. Hayek is one of the best known economists in world history, who won the Nobel Prize for showing how government intervention is responsible for the business cycle. He was a member of the austrian school, and his advisor was Ludwig von Mises, a highly influential austrian school economist. A quick Wikipedia search will reveal many other noteworthy economists aligned with the austrian school.

You're probably just another dumbass who thinks the free market got us into this mess, when in fact all we've seen in the last 100 years is an interventionist economic policy based on central banking.

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong?

[twistedcubic]

Most people opposed the $700 billion bailout. I've yet to find a serious economist or capitalist who believes that no action was a valid alternative...
I heard a couple economists on NPR claim the problem would work itself out, mostly. I don't remember names, sorry. But really, I think you're making a mistake assuming economists are scientists. I think they're more like lawyers-- you can always find one with any given opinion.

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong?

[Flavio]

Is there a specific person representing this "Austrian school" who is quoted in a reliable source as saying that no action was a valid alternative?

That means, quoted recently, specificly addressing this crisis; not quotes showing they said years ago "well, in the future when the mortgage default crisis is going to cause a liquidity crisis in the world, our theoretical analysis is going to recommend that no action should be taken."

I'm not going to do your homework for you because it sounds like you've already decided what to believe. Anyone who wants to find members of the Austrian school who predicted this disaster can look at Wikipedia's List of Austrian School Economists, select the younger individuals and find numerous articles. This is no surprise, since the current crisis is a textbook example of the business cycle recession/depression which Mises and Hayek (two Austrian economists) characterized.

American politicians used to talk a lot about the free market, while actually guiding the country in the opposite direction. Reagan used to quote Hayek, but his administration had a huge deficit spending binge. I also love how people now quote Greenspan for saying how he was mistaken about the free market, as if he could have a credible opinion on the subject.

Having the chairman of a central bank talk about the free market is like akin to asking a concentration camp director's opinion regarding liberty.

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong?

[Eudial]

1,000,000 lemmings can't all be wrong.

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong?

[Anonymous Coward]

Give me a break. Why is it that any time someone disagrees with someone they call the other person a liar? There is a difference between being wrong and lying you know. This sort of rhetoric is what makes it impossible to have a debate on anything these days. It reminds me of how a child argues.

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong?

[Flavio]

Give me a break. Why is it that any time someone disagrees with someone they call the other person a liar? There is a difference between being wrong and lying you know.

Because his association of austrian economics and flat-earthers was an obvious attempt to deceive. His comment never had an argument based on logic, science or history which could only pass as "wrong", because it wasn't the product of an honest mistake. It was a demonstrably false attempt to ridicule which deserved to be called upon.

I'm not going to tip toe around this matter just for the sake of being politically correct.

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong?

[Curien]

"We must do something. This is something. Therefore we must do this!"

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong?

[unlametheweak]

"It reminds me of how a child argues"

As a person who used to be a child I strongly disagree. Most children argue nonsensically as do most adults. Being nonsensical is not inherently childlike but is just a part of the human condition. Adults merely have the education to make their nonsensical arguments more elaborate.

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong?

[Flavio]

Since Hayek died in 1992, he could not possibly have made any statement whatsoever about this particular crisis.

I never said he did.

Hayek showed how the business cycle (i.e., the alternation of expansions and recessions) is intimately related to the government manipulation of interest rates, savings rates, and inflation through the central banks' manipulation of the money supply. This crisis is no exception -- the presence of financial instruments such as credit default swaps makes this scenario more serious, but does not change its fundamental nature.

In a free market model, money should work like any other commodity and derive its value from the market itself. Currencies should be present in many competing forms, and its issuance should not a privilege of the state. In contrast, Chicago school economists (like Milton Friedman, who most people think of when they hear of a free market) advocate government planning and intervention in the form of a central bank, which implies an obstructed economy and not a free market.

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong?

[sumdumass]

He posted anonymously because what he said was inflammatory crap and he knows it.

He, like a lot of people who don't seem to like free market ideals incorectly assume we have a free market right now in which we don't. It's like looking at a tree and saying I don't like dogs because the leaves make a mess.

Or to put the free market view he is exposing more in line with this current crisis, it is like saying someone moved into your neighborhood and all the sudden all the leaves turned brown and died, then fell off the trees, and you blamed that person instead of the season change. The problem we saw was a direct result of the government interfering with the markets who required things to happen that wouldn't normally happen. The market was anything but free otherwise the amount of bad debt being held would have been completely different. Companies and banks don't want to tie up money because someone cannot repay it. They were forced to by government regulation and in one case, an entire government sponsored enterprise was designed to specifically buy up that bad debt and spread it over more sound investments. The government ended up requiring them to pull to much risk in with little to no oversight which caused a landslide that helped start the problems we see today. And no, you can't blame it on one party either, both democrats and republicans were shunning regulation away. Bush attempted to get more oversight in 2003 which failed because of democrats just as much as republicans (got killed in comity by people taking campaign donations from the GSEs) and McCain attempted to do so in 2005 which suffered the same fate.

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong?

[Billly Gates]

The Austrain school of thought which Ron Paul subscribes to studies mathmatical curves of supply and demand and how they should mathmatically balance (when the market is perfect). The problem is market perfection is like a limit in Calculus. You aim for it but its never there. You only get closer and closer to it (for those who do not know what limits are).

For a perfect market you need to have perfectly rational human beings who are well informed %100 of the time. Also in a perfect market there are no monopolies, no barriers of entry, no perfect substitutes, and eveything is always balanced out where if one person ruins the market another balances to offset any correction so everyone is happy in this perfect capitalist utopia.

Here is reality:
- Economists do not take human/consumer behavior courses. Humans like to shop at the same place which is why chains are so popular and they may not always be the most informed or care if one place has what they need for cheaper. I go to Walmart and thats it .. etc.
- Investors are not rational. That says it all ... and look what they have done?
- No laws against bad loans and no laws about disclosure of ARMS. Most of the time they are in page 21 of the contract in lawyer speak in very small print and the bank does not mention its an arm. Only WOW 500k for only $1600 a month!!
- Yes its true taxes due change consumer behavior but what are you going to do? Have a volunteer pay system for the military, damns, bridges, hospitals, etc on all public goods?
- People try to get ahead sometimes does not balance but rather tilts the economy so either ther corporations, home owners, or banks try to rig the system for maximum profits which destabilized the market rather than balanced it.
- I do not like what Microsoft and Walmart are doing. I am sure we can just compete agaisnt them and take them down tomorrow right? ... uh no. Monopolies are market failures and are not caused by the government. Barriers of entry are the problem by proprietary software or those who have insane power on suppliers

So sorry but regulation can be good ... GRASP! . Ronald Reagan may have made it unpopular in the west but the only people who support this system are corporations and investors looking to make a quick buck. Its not socialism or communism to have regulations. People are not rational and do things that harm others and themselves. Normally I like to think if someone is dumb enough to shoot themselves in the foot that is their problem. However, we are all suffering indirectly from what a few irrational people did and that is not fair.

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong?

[tuxgeek]

Obama did refuse to put his hand ofer his heart
and he did refuse to wear flag lapels when everyone else was doing it

I really don't know why everybody is making such an issue over this shit.

Putting your hand over your heart during the PoA isn't a requirement in any manual I've seen. Most of us have just been programmed to do this from when we were young, but if you think about it, it's just a superficial gesture. Some do it, & some don't. Get over it!

As for the lapel pin, that is a republican thing. They thought it up. It also means absolutely nothing. It is almost sacrilege the way they make such an issue over it too. Considering how badly they have fucked the country up over the past 12 years.
I don't wear a lapel pin. I'm sure you don't either. Can we let it all go now and just keep moving forward?

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong?

[plasmacutter]

I say there still is a complete halt.

I can't get a consolidation on my private student loans. (well there's one provider with predatory variable rates)

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong?

[OeLeWaPpErKe]

That's not Obama at all !

He just wants to kill any God (or anything else) that's nice to people with the wrong skin color.

Obama's church believes that "AIDS was created by the US for black genocide".

Oh sorry I keep forgetting it's not racism when you're attacking the "right" skin color. Sorry I just seem to repeatedly get behind the times on what racism is allowed. Today's "positive" racism (excuse me discrimination) strikes me as equally hollow as hitler's "positive" discrimination (he actually used the same term you know), but I guess I better get with the program.

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong?

[otopico]

Perhaps it is time we stop being robots and realize that wearing of a flag or posing in a certain way during a song or some bullshit feel good 'pledge' is nothing more than a motion. If a person not putting their hand over some internal organ makes you wonder about that person's patriotism or 'respect' for traditions, it seems it says more about you than them. Questioning a person's decisions because of that makes you look like a simpleton. But at least you aren't alone. I guess intentional ignorance truly is bliss.

Questioning anyone's patriotism and deciding it isn't as genuine or as true as yours is one of the foundations of fascism.

Sorry, but too many people have died to let ignorant people take us down that road.

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong?

[plasmacutter]

Unlike communists and astrologists, you cannot point to any actual examples of libertarianism actually failing on a large scale in the real world.

Let's see here..

anti-trust law is one.

We had a very long period without the DOJ and FTC watching over companies and mergers like dead relatives.

It led to: the sugar, railroad, oil, etc trusts, which were so abusive even the government officials who slept with them got scared, and passed the sherman act.

Then there was the whole debacle of unregulated pharmaceuticals and food products, which led to a proliferation of lethally dangerous snake oils and the horrendous meat-packing conditions that inspired "the jungle". The government finally stepped in and created the FDA at the turn of the century.

The labor markets were another. Before fair labor laws were enacted, working conditions in the US made malaysian sweat shops look like club med. Sick days meant you got another job, any organization of labor was met with machine gun fire (literally, you can look up various labor massacres), etc etc.

Then there was a hands-off approach to private banking, until the depression. They repealed key regulations put in place since the depression and the credit crisis was the result.

Of course there are other examples going back to roman times. They used to have private fire companies (they really were fire companies! crassus ran one.. you paid him to put out any fires which might occur or he 'supplied' your home/business with fire..'the hard way')

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong?

[plasmacutter]

Some quotes on the efficacy of the austrian school:

Critics of the Austrian school contend that its methods consist of post-hoc analysis, do not generate testable implications and, so, fail falsifiability.[2][3]

This rings a bell

the school has traditionally advocated an interpretive approach to history.

So does every religion, extremist political ideology, and dingbat fringe cult.

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong?

[millennial]

"One of the least patriotic and disrespectful things people can do is to tear the country apart into little groups,"

You mean like "we'll tax 5% of the people and give it to the other 95%" class warfare thing?

Reverse that and you've got the way it is right now.

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong?

[Darby]

With patriotism, when people do things because of tradition, when you refuse to follow tradition, your patriotism is in question to those that hold tradition as a value. If you don't want to conform, fine, just don't be surprised when people have questions about your positions.

What you're talking about is called jingoism, not patriotism. It's pretty much the polar opposite as convincingly demonstrated by the actions of the traitors in the white house who are the ones who started that whole flag pin, anti-American bullshit.

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong?

[mikkelm]

If you're going to defend this with any sort of analogy, don't make it a law abiding analogy, because the rampant use of flags on everything everywhere in both the democratic and the republican campaigns, including pretty much everywhere else, is in direct violation of US Code on the matter.

US CODE, TITLE 4, SECTION 8
(d) The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free. Bunting of blue, white, and red, always arranged with the blue above, the white in the middle, and the red below, should be used for covering a speaker's desk, draping the front of the platform, and for decoration in general.
(e) The flag should never be fastened, displayed, used, or stored in such a manner as to permit it to be easily torn, soiled, or damaged in any way.
(f) The flag should never be used as a covering for a ceiling.
(g) The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.
(h) The flag should never be used as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying, or delivering anything.
(i) The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard. Advertising signs should not be fastened to a staff or halyard from which the flag is flown.
(j) No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations. The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart.
(k) The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.

Personally, I think this code is ridiculous, but if you're going to cite patriotism and fly straight in the face of supposedly patriotic legislation in doing so, you're doing something wrong. I'm glad to see that not everyone is feverish about putting flags everywhere and on everything, as it cheapens the symbol. How that is unpatriotic, I don't know.

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong?

[IICV]

I'm not sure if the law is enforceable or if it even has penalties but it is there and Obama claims he is a constitutional lawyer so he should know about it.

Why don't you pay attention to what it says?

(A) all present except those in uniform should stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart;

It's a recommendation on how you should behave, not a requirement. Just like in an RFC, the difference between "must", and "should" is important.

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong?

[Philip K Dickhead]

Hard to call it paranoia, when Whitey rigs a legal system that puts 12 percent of black men in 20s and early 30s behind bars.

America is a bigger racist prison state than South Africa ever was -It just has better public relations because the bloody Boers are in the majority.

If all you ever read is WHITE men's opinions of BLACK life and reality, I am sure you will consider yourself informed. But you will never KNOW.

Signed,
A LOVE Supreme.

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong?

[Philip K Dickhead]

US has more incarcerated than China.

There is a profit motive and industry involved.

It also removes dissenting population from the socio-political equation.

I despise 'libruls' as much as 'conservtives'. Warring factions of sheep - herded on towards the same abotior.

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong?

[thetoadwarrior]

What I mean is there are a lot of people that don't think he should be president because he's a Muslim as if that disqualifies you. These people are typically the very patriotic type unless you're not like them then the Bill of Rights and constitution don't apply.

Of course religious freedom doesn't give you the right to stone people or sacrifice people. But just as Muslims have extremists, the US has a certain segment of Christians or just plain old flag wavers that are becoming extreme too.

The Muslim religion and America are being hurt by extremists and I think in both cases the moderates aren't doing enough to silence the nut cases.

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong?

[Darby]

And no, it is not jingoism in any way.

Actually, that's exactly what it is. Patriotism is loving your country. Wearing a flag pin has no bearing on that, and given that it is the Republicans who have been making a big deal about it and pushing the idea that not wearing one makes one less patriotic and the Republicans have been actively engaged in treason the entire time, it's damn obvious that wearing a stupid fucking pin has nothing to do with patriotism. Refusing to wear one on the grounds that it associates you with traitors *is* a patriotic act.

So, yes, all it is is jingoism. You haven't said anything that would counter that fact.

If you think wearing stupid pins is patriotism, you're an idiot and I have to ask, why do you hate America so much that you'd try and sell ignorant empty gestures as patriotic?

Re:How could 63% of people be wrong?

[blamanj]

It wasn't the pledge anyway, it was the Star Spangled Banner, and Obama said "My grandfather taught me that you put your hand over your heart during the pledge, and during the national anthem, you sing."

That's OK

[Anonymous Coward]

A second poll found that one if four people are complete fucking idiots.

Well, as they say...

[joggle]

Texas is a whole 'nother country.

They have great ice cream (Blue Bell), great water parks (Schlitterbahn), nice lakes and neat caverns. But they also have a lot of insular communities in the country (I grew up in one...not fun if you disagree with the pack/herd).

Re:Well, as they say...

[dorque_wrench]

Texas is a whole 'nother country.

They have great ice cream (Blue Bell), great water parks (Schlitterbahn), nice lakes and neat caverns. But they also have a lot of insular communities in the country (I grew up in one...not fun if you disagree with the pack/herd).

SCHLITTERBAHN! (Ahem, sorry.)

And Shiner. You forgot the Shiner Bock!

And Roller Derby.

Re:Well, as they say...

[Chris Burke]

SCHLITTERBAHN! (Ahem, sorry.)

Is it just me, or has this always sounded like a German euphemism for cunnilingus to anyone else?

And Shiner. You forgot the Shiner Bock!

Meh. It's okay beer, I guess. The best thing about Shiner is that it's virtually guaranteed to be present at any event in Texas, so I'm never stuck drinking craptacular macro-brewed "American-style lagers".

And Roller Derby.

Mmm, Texas Roller Girls.

Oh, and btw, I'm originally from Michigan. Texas doesn't have any lakes (well I guess it has one). Man-made puddles don't count, even if it is still fun to go out on a buddy's sail boat in one. :P

Re:Well, as they say...

[Sique]

A Schlitterbahn is just an iced puddle, where you run, jump on and schlitter (slide) along...

Re:Well, as they say...

[Chris Burke]

So, you're telling me that it isn't a euphemism for oral sex. Are you sure? Isn't it possible that it might be, in secret?

And even if he was

[typidemon]

What does it matter you bigoted, hateful bastards?

Re:And even if he was

[philspear]

To play devils advocate (or rather, idiot's advocate, don't want to slander the devil) that WOULD mean he did lie to the american public, he's said many times he's not. It would be a shocking coverup that would really shake my opinion of him, not to mention make people wonder what other ridiculous right-wing lies about him are true.

So in and of itself, that wouldn't mean anything, and should not be a question. His response would have been. Kind of like clinton: the adultry didn't really matter and should never have been asked, but he did lie under oath.

Note that this is all hypothetical, the man is NOT muslim

Re:And even if he was

[Anonymous Coward]

Kind of like clinton: the adultry didn't really matter and should never have been asked, but he did lie under oath.

That's the really poisonous part of it. It's no longer necessary to get anything substantive on a politician. All you have to do is come up with some niggling, but embarrassing, fact. Then lay on the full-court press so that the pissant allegation will be denied ever more fervently to save face. Then you slipstream it into an unrelated investigation. (Questions about Monica during an investigation into acts with a different woman.) Once it''s denied in court, no one gives a shit about the original subject of the investigation -- you got him where you really want him.

IOW, pusillanimous bullshit -- all of it.

And then, having shit away incredible time and resources, you blame him for the disruption to the country's business. The true mark of the coward.

Also please note -- Of all the craps who were involved in the business about Clinton, only two came out with intact first marriages -- Bill Clinton and Orrin Hatch. The rest had ignominiously tossed away at least one previous wife. Especially that nefarious, duplicitous, hypocritical fuckface, Newt Gingrich. And he was barely even chastised by those other holy hypocrites, the fundamentalist sons of bitches who helped the whole gang get into office.

And how about Gingrich's first putative Republican replacement as speaker of the house? He pleaded that an extramarital affair was "just the mistake of a young man". Jesus Holy Christ -- the motherfucker was a full forty years old. Young man, my ass -- he was nothing but a burned-out lecher well beyond his prime. Goddamned whore-spawn.

Holy shit captcha = prejudge

Re:And even if he was

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

What does it matter you bigoted, hateful bastards?

Hell, his muslim connections are one of the two reasons I like the man for the job. Having muslims in the family (his middle name is Hussein after all) and having lived in a moderate muslim society (indonesia) as a kid, he is one of the few politicians who has significant direct personal experience with muslims and thus I believe he will not participate in the continuing, counter-productive demonization that we've seen since 9/11. While I doubt he can single-handedly stop the fear-mongering towards muslims (and I don't have high hopes he's got the cojones to stand up and say that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself with respect to terrorists) I do expect him to lead a radical shift for the better in the discourse on the topic.

And, in case anyone cares, the other reason I like him for the job is because he is black. Yeah, but not just "jesse jackson" black - HAWAIIAN black. There aren't too many popolos (blacks) in Hawaii but if there is one state the embodies the ideals of the "great american mixing pot" it is Hawaii. The state is FULL of prejudice and bigotry. But it is an entirely different sort than exists here on the mainland. A gentler and more understanding sort. I think Hawaii's interracial culture is probably the best compromise that we can expect to see in a country as mixed as the USA where there are pulls to both homogenize the culture and to remain distinct.

Based on him spending many of his formative years right in the middle of Hawaiian-style ethnic integration, I think it is no surprise that he is the first black man to have a serious shot the US presidency - he is not mentally chained to the same antagonistic racial perceptions that people on the mainland have way too much of. When the whole thing with his church blew up in the press and he made a speech about racial issues in the USA I could hear very strong echoes of Hawaii in the way he addressed the issue. I think any kaamaina listening to that speech heard it too.

So, if I like him for these reasons, well then its only fair that it is OK for some people to dislike him for the very same reasons. I think they are ignoramuses for it, but I can't call them any more bigoted than I am. But then I believe in the Hawaiian way and think that being color blind is probably the worst way to deal with ethnic differences. The knife does cut both ways.

Re:And even if he was

[couchslug]

"What does it matter you bigoted, hateful bastards?"

There is every reason for one who is not a Muslim to oppose Islam, just as they would oppose a toxic secular ideology like Communism. Why should a toxic belief system get a free pass because it is a superstition? Religions may be opposed for perfectly logical reasons such as the societies they produce, their inherent demand for theocracy, etc. Islam does not offer me more personal freedom, does impose social restrictions to which I object, and in practice insists on theocracy where there are sufficient Muslims to tip the balance in their favor.

Re:And even if he was

[Grishnakh]

Catholicism is nutty (I was raised in the Church), but there is nothing in modern-day Catholicism (esp. as practiced in the USA, as it is different than that practiced elsewhere; US catholics tend to ignore things they don't agree with, such as the prohibition on contraception) which requires a theocracy. In fact, I can't think of a single Christian-dominated country which could be called a theocracy, though many, many countries are Christian-dominated. The same is not true for Islam; it is an integral part of that religion that the government be a theocracy, and that infidels pay a tribute.

As for transforming the US into a Sharia Law state, there is nothing irrational about that at all. Have you been asleep for the past 8 years? Have you ever heard of an Executive Order? The President can make any new law he wants and enforce it. No one can stop him; he's the executive and the commander-in-chief. The Supreme Court could issue a ruling, but who's going to enforce it? Andrew Jackson showed the futility of that.

Re:And even if he was

[peterofoz]

Because he is born of a Muslim father, the Islamic world community will claim him as a Muslim. If he denies his Islam roots, they will denounce him as a traitor of the worst kind - a deserter of Islam - an apostate; Sharia Law proscribes severe penalties for this. http://www.peacefaq.com/apostacy.html#hatist Find out more about his Muslim roots http://www.danielpipes.org/article/5544

All this should not make a difference as to whether or not he is qualified to be the President of the US, but it does feed the phobia Americans have toward a different culture and religion, especially in the light of those who abuse and twist it to their own ends. Would it make a difference if he were Hindi or Buddist or Catholic or Jewish?

Vote your conscience and make an informed decision based on your candidates voting history. What kind of decisions does he make? Can he make a decision? Can you live with this? Would you trust the 'football' with him.

woah woah woah

[Anonymous Coward]

Stop the judgment bus there buddy!

I don't like Muslim *ideology*.

I don't like the idea that I must submit to Allah. Does this make me hateful? A bigot?

The President has the ability to veto and make decisions, and these in turn affect me, you and the world. What is his or her ideology? Are they pro women's rights? A Muslim, holding to Sharia law, sees women as less-than-human.

I can't support such an ideology.

Re:woah woah woah

[Anonymous Coward]

And I'm not big on Christian ideology either. Why should women be quiet in church? Why do I have to marry before having sex? Why should I give 10% of my earnings to the church? Why should I condemn homosexuals and treat them as inferior? etc etc.

An extremist christian is just as bad as an extremist muslim.

Fuck them both, I say. I'd rather have someone with intellectual integrity in charge. Someone who refuses to believe in imaginary friends and unprovable teachings. How else am I supposed to trust his judgement?

Besides, it's obvious that american politicians these days only profess certain beliefs in order to garner more popular support from idiots who have forgotten what the constitution says about separation of church and state.

Re:woah woah woah

[gardyloo]

A Muslim, holding to Sharia law, sees women as less-than-human.

I can't support such an ideology.

A Christian, holding to the values espoused in the New Testament, sees women similarly.

    Luckily, the FSM has a place for all in his noodly sauce.

Re:woah woah woah

[CSMatt]

"I don't like the idea that I must submit to Allah. Does this make me hateful? A bigot?"

Which is why the Constitution prohibits a state religion. And at any rate, the President does not legitimately have the power to declare law, only enforce it.

"The President has the ability to veto and make decisions, and these in turn affect me, you and the world. What is his or her ideology? Are they pro women's rights? A Muslim, holding to Sharia law, sees women as less-than-human."

Is this much different from the fundamentalist Christain view that women belong in the home (a view that itself is far more moderate compared to what the Bible says about women's rights)? Just like everyone doesn't agree with the Christain fundamentalists yet still claims to believe in the religion, not everyone who labels themselves as Muslim necessarily has the same strict interpretation. Not to mention that if this kind of thing does happen, the President risks losing his or her re-election because of the small amount of Muslims in the country, many of which might not even agree with his or her specific ideology.

Re:woah woah woah

[MicktheMech]

I think you're reading a different New Testament than I am.

Re:woah woah woah

[slimjim8094]

McCain isn't taking Palin seriously; she hasn't actually done anything, has she?

His arrogance in picking her is indicitave of his sexism - he was hoping that Clinton women would give up all their principles and vote for a ticket opposed to what Clinton stood for.

After all, politics is the realm of men. Women will just go "OMG A WOMAN" and vote for her, right?

Re:woah woah woah

[JavaRob]

If you're going to use the "wives submit to your husbands" line, I'll ask that you continue reading from there. The statement is given in the reverse as well. I don't see how anyone can make much of an issue that wives and husbands should submit to and serve one another in marriage.

That's simply wrong. There's no bible verse that says "husbands, submit to your wives", or that describes the husband and wife as equals.

Here's the quote you were talking about, for reference:

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. âoeTherefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.â This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband.

So, yeah -- wives must obey their husbands, and husbands should "nourish and cherish" their wives as they lead & command them. Sorry, but that's a far cry from the modern concept of equal partners in a marriage.

I guess I'm not suprised

[iamthelinuxguy]

The tide is turning. I've been a Texan all my life. Conservative talk radio dominates the AM dial and like they say...garbage in...garbage out. I'm constantly amazed how blindly my neighbors follow the party line. Lies and innuendo are accepted as fact. I hate to admit it, but the Christian Conservative movement has turned the whole fight into an us-against-them battle and it's impossible to make rational arguments when it's gotten to that level. There are those of us here that see the absurdity and will be voting for Obama. I don't agree with everything he stands for. Illegal immigration is a huge issue here. We don't really understand why politicians don't stand up for the American worker. Our jobs are being de-valued by workers who come here and will accept a non-living wage for most Americans. Our federal government hands out money hand over fist for welfare, health benefit and education to people that have no legal right to be here. Other than that, I agree with Obama's plans completely. The myth that the market will take care of itself has finally been debunked and hopefully we will get some sane regulation put back in place. I hope we can bring our troops back home and balance the budget. I hope we can do something about health care. I hope we can do something about our reliance on foreign oil. I hope we can help the unfortunate here at home that have slipped through the cracks due to our own selfishness. I believe that Obama is our best hope for a better future...and as a native Texan...he has my vote.

Re:I guess I'm not suprised

[geekoid]

Um, illegal immigarants sdo not take jobs away from Americans, in fact they do jobs Americans wont.
The old ways were the best. The came into the country, they did seasonal work no one else would, and take cash back toMexico where it improved there live and allowed communities to grow to a point where they culd start making things better, which means less immigrants.
Then Reagan fucked that up pandering to ignorant fears. So now it's a one way trip.

Two years ago there were whole fields rotting becasue there where no immigrants, and no locals would pick cabbage.
The farmer was offering 10 - 12 and hour PLUS benefits. Acres just rotted.

Now you could argue that they shuodl pay for, except farming respond to other fixed factors.

I wonder what people would do when all there produce started costing 5 times + in price?

Have you ever picked? I have, for 3 hours and walked away. It's a damn tough job, and anyone who could would find other work for the price.

Immigrants I have lived near have all been hard working people, doing crap jobs and instilling strong work ethic into their kids so their kids don't have to pick.

Really, there needs to be a quick to get seasonal Visa for farm workers.

"Our federal government hands out money hand over fist for welfare, health benefit and education to people that have no legal right to be here."

No, not really to that degree. Also, people who work here pay taxes on their income. They will never get SS, but they pay into it.

Besides, since they can't reasonably go back after season anymore, they stay. This wouldn't be an issue if they could go back.

Add to that the fact that the cost of securing the border would be more then the money immigrants might be getting in services.

It's not like they come here and take bankers job, or tech jobs.

Don't even get me started on what it would take to send them all back.

Re:I guess I'm not suprised

[Anonymous Coward]

The myth that the market will take care of itself has finally been debunked...

Keep in mind, the "myth" is that a FREE market would take care of itself. Unfortunately, we haven't had one in recent history, so it hasn't gotten a chance to prove itself.

Re:I guess I'm not suprised

[segedunum]

I feel for you. Man, those Christian fundamentalists have really screwed up conservative values. I'm a Christian myself, and I think we can all agree that some spiritual grounding and much of the stuff in the Bible are good things.

The problem I have with the Christian Conservatives is they display little in the way of Christian understanding and compassion, and the way they literally interpret the Bible and think they are good Christians scares the shit out of me. Dare I say it, they sound just as bad, if not worse, than the Islamic fundamentalists they rail against.

Re:I guess I'm not suprised

[Gordonjcp]

In a market economy, that's a clear example of not paying sufficiently.

So how much are you prepared to pay for your cabbage? Farmers aren't going to let themselves make a loss on it...

Re:I guess I'm not suprised

[Fastolfe]

So how much are you prepared to pay for your cabbage? Farmers aren't going to let themselves make a loss on it...

By keeping costs (thus prices) artificially low by hiring illegal migrant workers, consumption of cabbage is high. If you cut down on illegal migrant workers, price for cabbage will go up. One of two things will happen:

1. People will realize that there are alternatives to cabbage and switch. Demand for cabbage will fall. Cabbage farmers will have to cut back on production or lower prices below their costs, which means many will be unable to sustain themselves, and will switch to farm something else instead. This is the market at work.
2. Alternatively, people will decide that cabbage is a necessity, and pay any price for it. The cost of living will rise. These people may in turn demand higher salaries, and those that can't get higher salaries may decide to move someplace else that has a lower cost of living. The higher cost of cabbage is therefore spread throughout the market. Again, this is the market at work.

3. Civilization will not collapse because the costs of farming cabbage go up.

   (That being said, I'm not necessarily in favor of cracking down on migrant workers, just pointing these things out.)

Re:I guess I'm not suprised

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Dare I say it, they sound just as bad, if not worse, than the Islamic fundamentalists they rail against.

It's fundementalism / extremism that is the brain fart, it doesn't really matter what religion or ideology they've latched on to.

It was an epiphany that came when I realized that people who dig up bad shit in the quran are actively looking for bad shit which they can use to justify hating muslims. They are just the other side of the coin of islamic fundamentalists who dig up the same bad shit in the quran so that they can justify hating non-muslims.

Re:I guess I'm not suprised

[Grishnakh]

Maybe if we stopped paying people to not work (welfare), we could put those people to work doing crap jobs like picking cabbage.

Re:I guess I'm not suprised

[Fastolfe]

or you admit that illegals are doing it for a fair price (three times what the government says you need to make in order to live)

The price is fair to the illegals. The ability to live off of it is not the only factor that makes a wage "fair". If you could choose a living wage flipping burgers at McDonalds, or the same wage standing out in the hot sun picking cabbage all day, which would you choose? If people flock to McDonalds, and let the cabbage rot, it's clear that the wages paid to cabbage workers must simply go up. Do you really not understand how the market works?

If it were worth it to them, people would do it. No job is "beneath" a person if the price is right. Do you think the town of Buttfuck Alaska has to import migrant workers to be garbage men? Do you think they just don't have garbage men at all, because everyone would think it "beneath" them? Of course not. People do undesirable work because it pays well. If it doesn't pay well, nobody takes the job.

With our unemployment levels rising, the fact that more Americans (who in your words are "available and willing to do the work") won't take those jobs say you are mistaken.

You're taking what I said out of context. They're available and willing to do the work if the wage were right. But you're mixing the hypothetical (people would do the work) with the actual (these jobs are currently filled by illegal workers). The job openings don't exist, so it's not going to affect unemployment. If illegal workers were eliminated, farms would be forced to raise wages to fill the positions (or go out of the cabbage business, which would happen anyway for many cabbage farmers if the price for cabbage were to go up), which would lower unemployment rates.

Forget black or female president...

[thenewguy001]

I dream of the day when an atheist/agnostic person can be elected to the presidency; when a candidate's religious orientation does not matter; when we can truly have separation of church and state.

Re:Forget black or female president...

[PhasmatisApparatus]

Let's see...
Republican Christians will claim the Athiest is the antichrist.
Democrat Christians will claim the Athiest is too Fundamentalist(TM).
Republican Athiests will never get any airtime.
Conspiracy theorists will still claim he's Muslim. In chain emails.

Re:Forget black or female president...

[Immostlyharmless]

I dream of the day when an atheist/agnostic person can be elected to the presidency; when a candidate's religious orientation does not matter; when we can truly have separation of church and state.

AMEN!..........Oh....wait....shit...

Re:Forget black or female president...

[Kandenshi]

I'm a weak atheist, but I think that the goal of 'a candidate's religious orientation does not matter' isn't really a desirable one. If someone's religion explicitly commands abhorrant things(eg: kill anyone who wears the colour blue) then we should be rather wary of electing them to office. The religious views of people do influence their thoughts and actions, and those actions can affect me rather directly. Religion itself isn't the issue, rather the type of religion someone belongs to(and the beliefs it advocates) is.

As well, I'd argue that there have already been atheist/agnostic people as president of the USA. While seperate, many of the founding fathers were at the least deists, believing that God has no influence on the universe, having set it in motion.

However I agree that someone who went around openly proclaiming they don't believe in God would stand very very little chance of getting elected as president currently.

After all, atheists are usually really elitist, right? -_- While the movie had some issues, I've long been fond of a quote from senator Gracchus in the film Gladiator.
"I do not pretend to be a man of the people. But I do try to be a man for the people."
Why should it be a bad thing for someone to be from the "elite"(whatever that means) as long as they're trying their best to be FOR the people?

Re:Forget black or female president...

[aaron alderman]

Australia had an openly atheist Prime Minister in the 80's. (Bob Hawke)

Re:Forget black or female president...

[couchslug]

"when we can truly have separation of church and state."

Church demands control of state because Deity must rule man (conveniently enough, through his human representatives).

Re:Forget black or female president...

[Haeleth]

No, he wasn't talking about mere atheists. You need the athiest president you can find... the athier the better.

Re:From TFA

[spyder913]

A sample size of 550 gives an error rate of less than 5%, assuming they have randomized it.

See this page for more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size

No, the sample size is fine

[Mr2001]

As long as the sample is representative, the margin of error there is only about +/- 3.5%. (Sample Size Calculator)

Most national polls use sample sizes of 1000 or less, chosen from a population of 300 million. The whole point of polling is that you don't need to talk to a huge percentage of the population in order to be confident in your results.

No he is not...

[Xerolooper]

A Muslim no but I will pick the other corporate favorite because of their respective political views not because of any of the mudslinging either way.

In other news, Texas secesseds

[russlar]

Forms Republic of Dumbfuckistan

Re:In other news, Texas secesseds

[geekoid]

what's wrong with you, boy? that sound like one of them unamerican mid east locations.

We ain't gunna do that.

Signed A .Whole, Proud citizen of Republic of Dumbfuxas

Re:In other news, Texas secesseds

[Sponge Bath]

Don't worry. Those of us in Austin will lead the insurgency against the Republicans...
just as soon as we do a couple of more bong hits.

it's the Texans

[nEoN nOoDlE]

What is the number of people in Texas who believe the moon landing was fake? Some states might have a higher ratio of crazy conspiracy theorists than other states, so I'm just gonna say Texas is one of those states.

Re:Barak Hussein Obama IS a Muslim

[MoFoQ]

shouldn't it be "was"?
Barack Hussein Obama (aka Barack Obama, Sr) passed away when Barack Obama II was 21.

He might up there with the 72 Virginians having a beer and discussing his son's political career.

Re:Barak Hussein Obama IS a Muslim

[Geoffrey.landis]

The only problem with that statement is that it isn't true.

Here in El Paso...

[mattytee]

23% were unable to find their asses with the aid of a flashlight. On the upside, many holes in the ground were discovered.

Truth Revealed

[Jekler]

If nothing else, this year's campaigns have shown me how easily manipulated the general public is. It's not just people in Texas, but close friends of mine. I can't even vocalize how shocked I was to have someone I always believed to be an intelligent person confide in me his belief that Barack Obama is a "secret Muslim".

I can't believe how often and with how much confidence I see pundits, news anchors, editors, and journalists make claims about one candidate and simultaneously brush off exactly the same claim about their favored candidate. I mean to watch Bill Kristol essentially say, with a smile on his face, "It's only socialist if a Democrat does it." or "They're only radical associates if we're talking about Barack Obama." and then brush off the entire conversation the moment Palin's associations are mentioned.

It makes me think of one of Dr. Phil's favorite phrases "Right Fighters". They don't want to do what works, they want to be right. 95% of the people in this country wouldn't care if the candidate they've chosen blew up the whole fucking world, they'd never admit to being wrong. They'd just smile as their skin boiled off and say "Yeah, well your guy would have been worse."

I'm ashamed to even participate in this process. I'm ashamed to be saddled with the burden of even having to share a species with Sean Hannity. I don't want the other species of the world to make the mistake of thinking we've got anything in common. More than anything else, I think this election has just made me feel hugely ashamed. It doesn't matter who wins, humanity already lost.

The political interests now directly control the media. Journalists aren't even reporting or investigating anymore, they work for lobbyists and politicians while pretending to be informing the people. It's sad that comedians like Jon Stewart are so much closer to reporting reality than Fox News or CNN. As I'm sure everyone has now watched, they discussed Marsha Brady on CNN like she's a real person. That's what this whole thing is about. People who can't differentiate between reality and fantasy. Of course so many people believe Obama is a secret Muslim, anyone who thinks the Brady Bunch is a documentary is prone to believe anything.

Re:Truth Revealed

[Anonymous Coward]

I doubt you're really interested in expanding your mind but, since I feel like taking a break from work, I'll venture to suggest a slightly less simple-minded world view.

The difference between Christians, Jews, and Muslims is seen in the differences in the countries in which they're dominant.

Really? So would you care to elaborate on the difference between the Philippines (dominated by Christians) and Indonesia (dominated by Muslims)?

... I don't see anyone trying to force the worst parts of fundamentalist Christianity on everyone by law and succeeding.

That may depend on your definition of worst.

Let's start with a well-known, but rather trivial, example: clothes. There are a couple Muslim countries in the world that require women to wear burkas. Pretty bad, right? Clothes are a matter of individual freedom, right? So, try walking around naked in the USA. See how far you get before you're a convicted sex offender facing a lifetime of severe persecution. We talk about the USA and all of a sudden clothes are a matter of community standards (rather than individual freedom). Oh, the problem in the Muslim countries is discrimination: that they have different dress standards for men and women? Well, try walking around topless in the USA as a woman and see how far you get.

But let's move on to a more serious example: forcing your religion on other people. It turns out that there are young men that live such limited lives that they conclude that their own culture and religion is so superior to other religions and cultures that it must imposed on people in foreign countries by force. So, these young men travel to other countries and kill people in those other countries in an attempt to force them to adopt the "superior" culture and religion. How many simple-minded young men from the USA are currently killing people in the Middle East in an attempt to force people in the Middle East to adopt a more American culture and religion? A couple hundred thousand - quite a few. Now, how many people from the Middle East are killing people in the USA in an attempt to force people in the USA to adopt a more Middle Eastern culture and religion. Not very many. Maybe a few dozen - depending how you count.

But let's take a step back and look at the specific situation in the Middle East. You've got a bunch of immigrants from Europe and the USA who have moved to the Middle East, driven out most of the locals and set up a country that is explicitly proclaimed to be a country for an ethnic group of people other than most people in the Middle East. At present, this new little country of European and American immigrants has set up a system very similar to South African apartheid to beat up on the locals.

Why? A lot of it has to do with certain aspects of fundamentalist Christian and Jewish religions. The Jewish fundamentalists believe they were given the land by their god. The fundamentalist Christians believe that they've got to set this little country up to bring about some kind of apocalyptic "end-times" scenario.

Either way, to people in the Middle East, it looks like they're getting beat up on by people who are drawn to the worst aspects of Christianity and Judaism. Of course, if I've convinced you of the evils of religion generally, you might try going to live in one of the last remaining communist countries that favors atheism: say, North Korea.

Re:Not Muslim, but...

[samkass]

No, he's not Muslim, but his attending a rather radical black theology church with a rather strange pastor combined with other "interesting" seeming Muslim-sympathetic beliefs or actions do seem to point to a non-full disclosure of his beliefs, etc.

Um, you haven't read his book, have you? The first one, titled "Dreams from my Father", describes in detail how he was referred to Rev. Wright's church and what it meant to him, and described his transition from being Christian only in name to acquiring a belief system. The second one, "The Audacity of Hope", was named after the name of the first sermon he heard at Rev Wright's church and discusses the progression of his thinking and approach to government and belief. He may be accused of a lot of things, but lack of full disclosure CAN NOT be one of them. His entire life is, quite literally, an open book available for all to read.

Obama is the type of person who can freely discuss ideas with a great variety of people without adopting them. He especially values differing opinions, which I like as something that will help prevent any "failures of imagination" in his administration. Rev. Wright to him was a focal point for many disparate beliefs and influences, and despite some incendiary language helped him see many issues more clearly. In other words, Rev Wright was more of a lens than the source of light for Obama (at least that's my impression from his books).

I think this is why McCain has rightly shied away from challenging Obama's beliefs. Because they actually are one of Obama's strengths, especially compared to McCain's own.

Real question

[SupremoMan]

How many of the 23% think that him being a Muslim would be a problem? There is difference between being uninformed and being a bigot.

Yes he is muslim

[tempestdata]

So what? Last I checked the United States of America was a country with a clear separation of church and state. Why do you CARE if he is a muslim, a christian, a jew , a hindu or an athiest? All you should care about is if he is a good president. Don't give me the hogwash about his religion influencing his actions. Do not vote for a president because he is swayed by his religious beliefs, NOT because he belongs to a particular religion. Don't vote for him even if he is a christian.

Don't vote for barak obama because he is black either, just as you wouldn't want someone to not vote for him because he is black. Either way its racism. Race, religion and sexual orientation are all irrelevant to his ability to run this country. But no. thats too much work for you isn't it? Its much easier to be ignorant and prejudiced than to be informed and fair.
Will he be a better president and have better policies than John McCain? That's what you should be thinking about. That's it. NOTHING else. So what if Barak Obama is a Gay, Muslim, Black man? If you think any of those three inherently affects his ability to run this country, then you are ignorant and frankly shouldn't be allowed to vote.

Re:Should this really be all that surprising?

[Anonymous Coward]

he was raised as a Muslim

[citation needed]

and studied in an Islamic school in Indonesia.

No, he didn't. He studied at a school in Indoneisa, but calling it an "islamic" school is like calling all schools in the US "christian".

he had no problem with going to a church with an hateful racist pastor

Uhh, if you check, you'll find that he *doesnt* go to that church anymore, which kind of implies that he *does* have a problem with it.

Perhaps you need to catch up on your propaganda. I think you're supposed to be calling him a Marxist now.

Re:Not Muslim, but...

[compro01]

Catholics gave up crusading a few centuries ago. Islam seems to be getting into that "phase" now, which makes sense to me, as Islam started several centuries later.

Re:I wouldn't be so sure if I were you

[Clandestine_Blaze]

Well, Osama Bin Laden can call President George W. Bush a Muslim for efficiently doing something that he couldn't do - increase membership to al-Qaeda. But that wouldn't make Geroge W. Bush a Muslim. When I visit my relatives in Iran, the government of Iran considers me a Muslim, but I don't consider myself one, and I'm not. They don't ask me to pray five times a day and don't quiz me on the Koran upon entering the country. And so what if Senator Obama WAS a Muslim? There is no way Obama would be able to suddenly install Sharia Law all over America (which is what most people fear) without approval from Congress and the American people. He would be impeached for treason immediately.

There are many American Muslims that would be certainly qualified for Presidency. There are also many Muslims that serve in the U.S. Armed Forces, but I don't see you bitching about them. So it's okay for them to die for this country, but not okay to lead it?

I couldn't care less about a candidate's religion unless they wore it on their sleeve and wanted to pass laws and executive orders that changed the way I lived. This is precisely why the current crop of Republicans concern me, because they abandoned their "small Government" platform and went after the evangelical vote. They started pandering to the very people who want ME to follow their laws, their version of history, and their Bible. I am willing to vote for a Muslim, a Christian, a Catholic, a Buddhist, a Zoroastrian, an Atheist, and a Satanist (etc.) as long as they lead the country with rational thinking, intelligence, and submit to the will of the American people, not the other way around.

Besides, Obama would not last a MINUTE in office if he became President, then suddenly said "GOTCHA, I'm an evil Muslim, and I'm going to enslave you infidels." :P

So...what religion is he?

[dtjohnson]

The only 'religious' thing he's done is attend the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years, who he now disowns for political reasons. Obama's mother was atheist. He never knew his father. His step-father was muslim.

Re:Well what should really make you stop and think

[Totenglocke]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/?pageId=74635 It was a televised interview on ABC.

Kennedy had this problem too

[Torodung]

There was a great deal of concern that, being Catholic, JFK might take his orders from the Pope, instead of enforcing the Constitution. Until he was elected, it was widely believed that only a Protestant could be elected President.

It all turned out to be bunk. Kennedy's religion did not dictate his policies, and neither will Barack Obama's.

The rumor of 'secret Muslim' is untrue, but more importantly, it's already been proven that his religion is irrelevant. Only his ability to "uphold the Constitution" and do what is best for America is important.

Those who religion is the relevant criterion seek to undermine the Constitution of this country.

Just read what Mike Hucakbee has to say about it:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/15/579265.aspx

Seriously, our Constitution avoids the mention of God for a freaking reason. The founders had a big problem with the head of the Church of England.

--
Toro

Of course Obama's not a muslim.

[argStyopa]

He's a member of a bigoted, ethnocentric, racist CHRISTIAN church.

Houston, we have a problem....

[The Famous Druid]

23% of the Texas population are morons.

Re:Well what should really make you stop and think

[Lemmy Caution]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obama.asp

The context makes it clear. This was nothing like what is being suggested happened.

Re:He may not be Muslim

[YttriumOxide]

We can hope so...