Why Americans believe Obama is a Muslim

Yes, the media does indeed fuel these things, and that includes PhysOrg. Why? Consider the following:

Kosloff noted that the poll was conducted before Obama's recent comments supporting the right for Muslims to build a mosque near New York's Ground Zero.

First, they are not building a mosque from scratch in a controversial location. They have proposed to renovate an existing building in which mosque-type activities are, and have already been, taking place for some time! Second, this use of the present building was not newsworthy until they proposed the renovation of the same building. Why not?

Obama is between I-rock and a hard place. If he denounces Islam, all kinds of intafada-durkadurka-jihad will happen. If he denounces Liberation Theology (rev. Wright) he loses support at home. If he comes out and says he is an atheist both parties are disappointed. Better to leave it all a mystery.

The intentional ambiguity does play into what the idiot Kosloff says. Only he is too stupid, or too partisan, to acknowledge the facts.

A person is what she or he claims to be, in terms of religion. Nobody is born Muslin like you are born black or white, you choose because of family influence, environment or because you have the choice. Obama claims to be Christian, so he is Christian in a free country. Many people living in Spain and Portugal were converted from Islam to Christianity (many times, forcibly) after they expelled the Moors. In any case, saying that a Muslin can't convert is foolishness. Your statement "or they must be killed" is confusing. Who is going to kill Obama because his father was a Muslin and the president is now a christian? The Christians or the Muslims?

I believe he is a Muslim because the Muslims say is a Muslim by their rules.

Some muslims claim Darwin is a muslim as well. Don't be retarded.

A Muslim father has Muslim children.
Muslims can't convert or they must be killed.
The only true Koran is the one written in the original Arabic.
These are their rules.

Only for about 2 out of 30 sects of Islam. If you're going to be entirely ignorant about an entire faith, (including your own) keep your mouth shut about it.

If he comes out and says he is an atheist both parties are disappointed.

Actually, 22% of the voting block will probably immediately show support for him if he did that. Maybe more depending on how poorly the latest surveys have been done.

@Lari

-- its a very extensive renovation and the look of the building will now resemble a traditional Mosque. Thus the critisim and the hype -- I feel they have the right to do so , but even a 5 year old can understand why this is news worthy it tugs on emotions - good or bad

@marjon

well by Jewish rules you are jewish by definition if your mother is jewish that doesn't make 10% of the population jewish now does it?? The idea that a person is incapable of choosing there own beliefs is archaic

@shootist

what mystery ?? the man is Christian maybe not born but definitely raised in the church and has been practising christianity back when the thought of a black president even made black people laugh. ( i can only qualify that last statement by saying i am black -- though it makes no difference)

there is no intentional ambiguity - there is no ambiguity at all.
The whole point of the article is to point out why people believe lies -- everyone so far has missed that.

before one researches a false belief, one has to prove that the belief is false...

and even more so,one has to understand the tenets of the ideas and ideology as well.

"Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible." (Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, The Reliance of the Traveller, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, amana publications, 1997, section r8.2, page 745)

Bowing does'nt help either...

I will also point out another way, that the whole point of the report is a report as to which messages are prevalent, and so has little to do with which messages are valid, but more to do with which messages indicate control over the populations thinking.

their results dont change if he is a muslim, or not... that is, validity of the belief is not a point, but only whether and how many share it.

also, having a doctrine like Taqiyya tends to sow mistrust

[and their teaming up with Hitler, then Stalin doesn't lend much to trust either]

LASTLY: it ALSO doesn't help that the Secret Service gave him the code name RENEGADE..

since renegade is a "Christian turned Muslim"...

1580s, "apostate," probably (with change of suffix) from Sp. renegado, originally "Christian turned Muslim," from M.L. renegatus, prop. pp. of renegare "deny" (see renege). General sense of "turncoat" is from 1660s. The form renegate, directly from M.L., is attested in Eng. from late 14c.

Clearly, people will believe any sort of smearing lie if they are already predisposed to mistrust or dislike a person. What this study shows is that all it takes is a reminder of why they mistrust or dislike that person for them to be more likely to believe a smearing lie, even if the lie has nothing to do with why they mistrust or dislike this person. When that reason is as mendacious and base as racism, as it clearly is in the case of President Obama, the lies do nothing more than condone that racism, and when those lies are promoted or glossed over by the media, then the media becomes complicit in this disgusting promotion of racism.

@Thrasymachus, well put. Moral of the story is: don't trust surveys

also, having a doctrine like Taqiyya tends to sow mistrust

Only if you think that all adherants follow taqiyya. That's kind of a cop out, especially comming from you.

[and their teaming up with Hitler, then Stalin doesn't lend much to trust either]

You mean like the US did?

First of all Obama is a lousy president, regardless of him being a muslim or not. The manner in which he is running the US economy is a complete disaster. Printing and spending money doesn't increase productivity. It only weakens an economy.

Obama is trying to undo the damage of the last two administrations. There's a reason why the economy is in such bad shape, but right winger's don't want to admit that their boys, Bush and Cheney are primarily responsible.

We had historic economic growth and stability,under Clinton, but the next administration saw that as an opportunity to steal from the American people, and give money to their oil and military machine buddies (and their own families). the Bush family has long history of war profiteering, going back at least 3 generations. We had Prescott Walker Bush caught red handed actively the Nazi's by helping to find the scientists and funneling money to them. We had Bush Sr, and his participation in the Iran Contra incident. We had Bush Jr and his involvement with Halliburton and starting a war with the wrong country under outrageously false pretenses... all while he broke the US economy.

Now Obama has to clean up the mess of the previous two terms.

Only if you think that all adherants follow taqiyya. That's kind of a cop out, especially comming from you.

i dont think they all do. but the question then becomes, which one. you let me know how you determine which one.

that is a problem when an ideological view also encompases end justifies the means thinking, there no longer is a way to separate the common people who go about their lives from the others.

You mean like the US did?

no... its interesting that you want us to separate the people that do things from the whole, then the second example is to damn the whole for a few people.

its ALSO interesting that the people who DID align with Hitler in the US were the progressives, neo liberals, and other left socialists... and its also interesting that Obama mentions the same Nazi doctrine as Coughlin, "social justice" (the name of Couglins newsletter).

Did you forget that Hitlers people wrote gamble, and Popenoe, of Margarette Sanger's "negro project" eugenics advice

I'd be very curious to discover where the funds came from that paid for this drivel. Stimulus money, anyone?

We had historic economic growth and stability,under Clinton

who got that growth from the end of the cold war and all the money that should hve paid down debt. then you also forget that it was progressives that made the Fed. and progressives that creatd fanny and freddy. they segregated schools, as well as the military. democrats were the party of jim crow, the knights of the white camelia. it was their murders and rampages that caused the scandal in hayes tilden elections (the congressional testimony of radical republican who had her breasts cut off and lived is interestring to read).

numinous, time to read about PRAVDA... translated it means TRUTH.. that is, the news organ of the soviet state was called "truth"...

so what makes you think that the people that claim to follow the same ideology, would be different?

Read about prescot... he did NOT help the nazis. he attempted to overthrow FDR... who created camps, the same way woodrow wilson did. and more (Zinn was a communist)

"its ALSO interesting that the people who DID align with Hitler in the US were the progressives"

The "progressives" as that time, are not even remotely the same people who are progressive now.

Read the following definitions as stated by the Dictionary, Encyclopedia Britannica, and the Columbia Encyclopedia.

1. A U.S. political party that was organized by Republican insurgents in 1911 and supported the presidential candidacy of Theodore Roosevelt in 1912. Also called Bull Moose Party.
2. A U.S. political party organized in 1924 that supported the presidential candidacy of Robert M. La Follette and was active in Wisconsin until 1946.
3. A U.S. political party formed in 1948 to support the presidential candidacy of Henry A. Wallace.

See? The progressive party has meant different things over time. Now it literally means a forward thinking party, and is very much liberal and supported by intellectuals. Which is good.

and numinous, you should read how the communist party USA were with the Nazi's as they colluded with Hitler. or did you forget the pact? Both were competing for the same people, people like you. (before you go crowing, my family lived through that, and Stalin twice).

that the side your on, tortured to death over 100 million people. they starved the population of ny in one winter. experimented on their own, the way progressives experiment using social engineering, and directly experimented.

all of them have eugenics as a major goal, from moses harmons lucifer bringer of light (later american eugenicist) to Sanger.. to our current czar.

the left neo liberals remind me so much of the communists who came to the US... even ceucescau thought macys was fake...

by the way, Clinton was a Fullbright exchange student who went to school in the soviet union rather than serve his country.

Pravda? Wow. A word of advice, some of what's posted there is nowhere near as reliable as you might think.

Here are my recommendations. Study your history, read more books, and try to get your news from as many sources as possible. Then use logic and reason to understand what's being told to you.

All news sources should be analyzed and questioned. Don't follow blindly.

I remember the Clinton years. The economy was better then. If you don't remember that, you're either too young, haven't done your research, or are willfully ignorant of what it was like back then.

And clearly, those who have invested a great deal of themselves in their hatred and prejudice, will take any opportunity to show it off, and bully, cajole and confuse those don't think like they do to join them in their cynical and self-destructive mendacity.

"by the way, Clinton was a Fullbright exchange student who went to school in the soviet union rather than serve his country."

Oh... I see. Going to school is bad. It's much better to fight in a highly questionable war.

Yeah. Right. (That's sarcasm, by the way. I know right wingers have a hard time understanding that.)

Say... Didn't Cheney duck out of the war? Didn't McCain crash five planes and set fire to a ship, and stupidly get himself caught (after crashing his plane)and then denounce America on radio?

It's funny. When you look at the past of a lot of political candidates, you'll see some pretty interesting things. Clinton went to school instead of serving in the military. I don't blame him.

i dont think they all do. but the question then becomes, which one. you let me know how you determine which one.

When anyone lies to me, and I catch them, I confront them. If they lie to me when I confront them, I wash my hands of them.

no... its interesting that you want us to separate the people that do things from the whole, then the second example is to damn the whole for a few people.

I was pointing out the hypocrisy of your statement. If that makes you uncomfortable, recant your statement.

its ALSO interesting that the people who DID align with Hitler in the US were the progressives, neo liberals, and other left socialists...

And businessmen, and conservative bankers, etc.

Lots of people aligned with Hitler, until he started invading countries, and a great many stayed with him until the Japanese bombed Pearl harbor.

Numinous, i am not a right winger.. and i Dont think Obama is a Muslim... i KNOW he is a progressive... and i KNOW he is a collectivist, who believes in collective salvation...

If you cant see the difference between attending school in the soviet union to avoid the draft from going to school in nj community college, then your just a brain dead useful idiot.

As far as the war, i will assume that you are FOR genocide, mass murder, and all that the communists did after we left.

According to published academic studies in the United States and Europe, 165,000 people died in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam's re-education camps

The countries that accepted most of the Indochinese refugees were:

* United States - 823,000
* Australia and Canada - 137,000 each
* France - 96,000
* Germany - 40,000
* United Kingdom - 19,000

so like sanger you condone killing people of other colors to make room for whites like you. by the way, my wife is Asian... i am not...

Skeptic_Heretic, so if you dont catch them, they got you... so what did you do to determine in this case? given that both ideologies REQUIRE lying, its better to avoid, given your logic.

that is, your logic states, that as long as they can con you, you wont do anything... but if you catch them, you will give them a chance to explain.. which is a chance to do you again.

I was pointing out the hypocrisy of your statement. If that makes you uncomfortable, recant your statement.
there was none... they state that they lie.. they state that they require lies...and they state that lies are a strategy.

all i said, is that if someone says they lie and lying is a requirement, and there is no moral wrong in lying as a doctrine, trusting them is a bad thing to do.

you can trust them if you want.

want to know what happened to the people who trusted these people in history?

And businessmen, and conservative bankers, etc.

you say that as if businessmen are not communists or socialists?

Big business is FASCIST and needs the state to survive creative destruction. that is, they would never be so big without the collusion of the state. so MANY of the children of the big business people became communists.

your point is irrational...

Lots of people aligned with Hitler, until he started invading countries, and a great many stayed with him until the Japanese bombed Pearl harbor.

i was talking after... not before.. care to check out where Obamas uncle worked and where Hitler got his fuel from? care to look to see who micro lending program from the ford foundation and cointel later on?

ever read on the reformation of the koran by Hitler? as the US modified Nostradamus as an active measure, Hitler also modified the Korans. they were thought to have been destroyed when the museum was bombed. they have been rediscovered.

Gee, how could THIS discussion have possibly gone so far off topic?
/end sarcasm

The discussion is about the public view that Mr. Obama and his family are secretly observing Ramadan in the White House basement. You want to talk about the economy and blame it all on him? Go somewhere else. But while we're here...

Printing and spending money doesn't increase productivity. It only weakens an economy.

John Maynard Keynes may have disagreed with you on that. The economy you're talking about only exists due to Keynesian policies kept in place from FDR until Nixon ("the good old days"). That government spending and printing money created several productive sectors, as well as freeways and power infrastructure that you use every day. People always seem to forget how many technologies only exist because of military spending. Printing money works wonders on an economy as long as you take it back out later.

Pravda? Wow. A word of advice, some of what's posted there is nowhere near as reliable as you might think.

are you a daft moron... i was pointing out how, by yours and others logic, that pravda meaning truth would have you snowed.

my family was part of the latvian rifle corps that made the soviet union. we also were the woods people... and we also were conscripted to fight stalin, and recieved special dispensation.

i do know my history.. though i have yet to afford to travel to see the mass graves my family might be in. dad was a refugee. i also have family who lived under mao... and romanian friends... and others.

we dont talk among useful idiots like you much... because you think your imaginations and trite stuff is right, and we know from experience...

personally it doesnt matter, we have already lived that way, and know how to live and survive.

we also know what happens to those who help the cause. they are not rewarded.

enjoy utopia.

I would surely like, one day, for people to realize that it is rarely ideologies that are at fault rather than the people who purport to practice them. Bigots like Art fling out terms like communist, socialist and fascist without any indication that they understand what those terms mean, and what the differences between them are, but use each one with the attitude that it's someone who molests children. And I swear, people who think they understand economics and don't are worse than people who think they understand physics and don't.

I've noticed Art's bigotry as well. I've also noticed that when he can't actually support his beliefs with data or logic, he resorts to insults. The last refuge of a small minded person.

Looking up information, and checking it's sources is always a good idea. Check out as many sources as possible.

The smart money is on the person who looks at a subject from as many viewpoints as possible. People should not do as Art does and spout hatred if anyone questions a point of view.

Bigotry always tries to rationalize itself. Now, more and more people are using code words because they realize that their beliefs are vile, so they try to disguise them as something else.

Funny, the right wingers try so hard to claim their racism is really a fight against communism or some other outlandish thing.

The sad thing is these people know their views and claims are wrong... otherwise, why bother to disguise them?

Love to see them respond to that.

I'd say that marketing majors and pundits have long known that, although technology evolves so quickly that it has a half-life of 4 years, the same can't be said for the hardware known as the human brain.

Why, thousands of years later, and it still ticks the same! The same switches are still there, but can now be played with en masse. While plenty of blame can be heaped on those who knowingly manipulate such switches, there's something to be said for someone who knows they have these exposed, but fails to cover them.

The whole point of the article is to point out why people believe lies -- everyone so far has missed that.

@Self admitted black dude: I am certain my post explained why at least some people do not believe Obama is a Christian.

I could go further and explain that Obama's Father was a Muslim, his step-father was a Muslim, his Mother converted to Islam, he was educated as a Muslim child, and he has a Muslim name.

But I won't.

It could be that, simply, Americans are inherently ignorant, preferring only the answer thrust at them instead of thinking critically about what they're told.

This would appear likely, considering the failures of America's public school system, the commodification of "higher" education, the outsourcing of technical jobs overseas and the crucifixion of the intelligencia.

Human beings are inherently ignorant, not just Americans. Especially when we're pressed for time/survival. But this isn't about thinking or ignorance. It's about feelings and lies that reinforce those feelings. Many Americans are fearful, full of hatred and prejudice, and arrogant. Lies tend to exacerbate those conditions.

@Self admitted black dude: I am certain my post explained why at least some people do not believe Obama is a Christian.

I could go further and explain that Obama's Father was a Muslim, his step-father was a Muslim, his Mother converted to Islam, he was educated as a Muslim child, and he has a Muslim name.

But I won't.

My father was a Catholic, my Grandfather was a Catholic, probably his father too and I have a Christian name (John)and attended a denominational school yet I`m an atheist. Go figure...

I talked with a family member yesterday about this poll, and he said he believed that Obama is a Muslim. He watches Fox News constantly, so I wasn't too shocked. I asked him why he thought that, and he said it's because Obama bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia. I guess I missed that headline, but I asked if a president could have been *politically* motivated to do such a thing. He retorted that if that's true, then Obama is a liberal America-hater. Wait, what?

"That may be so," said I, "but that's different from being a Muslim, isn't it?" He then started in about how Obama is a socialist, and he attended Jeremiah Wright's church where he was indoctrinated into "Liberation Theology". I had tried to keep a calm demeanor thus far, but I couldn't help but laugh in surprise as I said, "So Obama is an extremist Christian socialist liberal Muslim? That doesn't seem likely." I realized he just wanted to rant about Obama; whether he was *actually* a Muslim was irrelevant.

/cool story bro

So I'm just wondering, as the majority of this board seems to be of the atheist persuasion, why does it matter if he believes in the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy...as far as you're concerned that is.

ever read on the reformation of the koran by Hitler? as the US modified Nostradamus as an active measure, Hitler also modified the Korans. they were thought to have been destroyed when the museum was bombed. they have been rediscovered.

Same was done with the Bible. It was to remove all the references to Judiasm. Get some better talking points, businesses seldom want socialism. It affects their bottom line when their profit margin and product is wholly owned by the state, dunce.

So I'm just wondering, as the majority of this board seems to be of the atheist persuasion, why does it matter if he believes in the Easter Bunny, or the Tooth Fairy...as far as you're concerned that is.

Because two of the three western faiths are essentially death cults and this man has control over weaponry that could decimate the entire world at the push of a button.

I'd prefer if he had no faith in Revelations or the prophecy of the 12th Imam.

I'd prefer if he had no faith in Revelations or the prophecy of the 12th Imam.

Uh yeah I got that loud and clear SK...what I actually ASKED is why does it matter which "death cult" he belongs to to you?

To quote: "Stop being intentionally thick".

Who is going to kill Obama because his father was a Muslin and the president is now a christian? The Christians or the Muslims?

Muslims.

I'd prefer if he had no faith in Revelations or the prophecy of the 12th Imam.

Uh yeah I got that loud and clear SK...what I actually ASKED is why does it matter which "death cult" he belongs to to you?

To quote: "Stop being intentionally thick".

No, you asked why does it matter what his beliefs are. I answered. If you're going to ask a specific question, be specific.

The whole story about some Americans believing President Obama is Muslim is a media contrived fraud. Physorg is part of that fraudulent media. The proof is the publication of the above article.

Obama is trying to undo the damage of the last two administrations. There's a reason why the economy is in such bad shape, but right winger's don't want to admit that their boys, Bush and Cheney are primarily responsible.

Using that logic, a person on a roller coaster is *causing* it to climb or descend a grade. Riding a bubble as it grows is no more an indication of excellent economic policy than presiding after the bubble bursts is an indication of ineptitude.

If you have ideological differences with one side, you will probably believe that *they* caused the problem regardless of the information available.

I can only assume this is an attempt to prove the point the author of the article was making - namely that people will often believe negative things about others they perceive as different.

If spending money we don't have got us into this mess, perhaps someone could explain how spending *more* money we don't have can fix it...... but I doubt it.

Obama is not Muslim he is definitely arrogant and so this suports John Calvin of the Protestant Church muck like Lincoln. Obama burning opium crops is arrogant---

Having medical marijuana in Northern America where for one the plant is not even native to and second no other country in the world where marijuana does grow does acknowledge any medical signigicance at all in the plant. This is a very good example of arrogance.

Barrack Obama is of arrogance and displays it to near wicked perfection.

The whole story about some Americans believing President Obama is Muslim is a media contrived fraud. Physorg is part of that fraudulent media. The proof is the publication of the above article.

Didn't you read my cool story, bro?

Oh brother, this professor is exhibiting the same type of suspect logic the climate folks have been caught using time and again to manipulate and deceive the uninformed with bogus "custom fit" data (the best that money can buy). The truth is he is more than likely a political operative, one of the many rearing their globalist head of late, to pave the way in shutting up free speech on the internet and radio by race baiting. The republicans are in lock step with their "ground zero mosque" and illegal immigrant agitations. They are both on the same side, and are afraid, very afraid of the free flow of information ..Obama is no muslim, but the last time I check AMERICANS have the right to be wrong, deal with it. Cut the psychobabble "science" you look silly ....

Obama is trying to undo the damage of the last two administrations. There's a reason why the economy is in such bad shape, but right winger's don't want to admit that their boys, Bush and Cheney are primarily responsible.

According to American standards I'm not a "right winger". I have a positive stance on free health care/education and approve of cloning & stem cell research. I dislike Obama because what he's doing ruins the American economy and thus hurts European growth. Even Keynes himself wouldn't have supported what Obama does. He never said that you should keep on printing and spending money for years. He always warned about the danger of inflation and said that any form of stimulation should not last long. Stimulus packages don't improve anything, unless they change the public opinion. They only result in unproductive growth. Obama's packages didn't improve the public opinion so they were useless. Now the only other option left is to cut the budget and lower taxes.

I'm sorry, Neder, but that's just wrong. Inflation would only be a real danger if redistribution of wealth loomed. Since 1% of Americans own 90% of it's private wealth, the real danger is of deflation, especially of the investment vehicles available to most Americans. The real problem with Bush's stimulus was that it stimulated the wrong people, the 1% who caused the mess in the first place, rather than the 90% who could actually fix it. Of course, that would risk inflation, so ain't nobody gonna do it, cause inflation is so much worse than growing poverty and joblessness, apparently.

Didn't you read my cool story, bro?

You mean the one you made up, bro? You had no such conversation with anyone, .... bro.

No, you asked why does it matter what his beliefs are. I answered. If you're going to ask a specific question, be specific.

Note to self: Don't assume everyone gets your clever metaphors.

So the specific question is:

Why does it matter, or indeed does it matter, to an atheist whether or not Obama is a Muslim, or a Christian?

It's somewhat of a rhetorical question, but I'm interested to see any answers and how truthful they sound.

If spending money we don't have got us into this mess, perhaps someone could explain how spending *more* money we don't have can fix it...... but I doubt it.

@JA,
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe that the government injected a couple of trillion dollars of taxpayer money into the finance industry prior to the collapse.
And I will happily agree that they shouldn't have spent the money on the finance industry after the collapse. Those "too big to fail" should have been receivered and restructured.
That bailout money should have been distributed as direct stimulus to each and every taxpayer with an annual income of ~250K or less, to the tune of about 30K.
That would have eliminated the bulk of the consumer debt, increased savings, increased spending, and rewarded savers by offsetting investment losses caused by the finance industry's worst excesses. Why should the architects of failure profit from it at every step along the way?

You speak of atheists as if they would hold a single opinion on the matter. Personally, I am somewhat bemused that politicians are required to report their faith in order to be electable. I imagine an atheist could be predisposed to dislike Christians more than Muslims, as Christians did kill slightly more people and were somewhat more intolerant in their rise to power than Islam was, but I could also imagine atheists who have the opposite disposition. So the question really is, why does it matter whether someone's an atheist for it to matter whether Obama's a Christian?

A better question would have been

Why does it matter to an atheist, or does it matter to an atheist, whether or not the public thinks Obama is a Muslim or a Christian?

You speak of atheists as if they would hold a single opinion on the matter. Personally, I am somewhat bemused that politicians are required to report their faith in order to be electable. I imagine an atheist could be predisposed to dislike Christians more than Muslims, as Christians did kill slightly more people and were somewhat more intolerant in their rise to power than Islam was, but I could also imagine atheists who have the opposite disposition. So the question really is, why does it matter whether someone's an atheist for it to matter whether Obama's a Christian?

Then there are the poster boyz of atheism, Stalin and Mao. No one has matched there murder record.

Perhaps because an atheist values verifiable truth to such a great degree, that they are willing to forgo the comfort of an idea of eternal paradise? Perhaps because atheists tend to be more intelligent, and thus less prejudiced and bigoted, and are disgusted to see a not so thinly veiled racial smear in this propaganda? Why are you so interested in what atheists think?

And it's actually quite false that Christianity hasn't matched the murder record of Stalin and Mao. Perhaps if you took all the twentieth century dictators who purported to be atheist and lumped all their murders together, they would equal the mendacity of Christianity and Islam for the past thousand years, but only because there were a lot more people to kill in the 20th century than there were in the preceding 1900 years.

This article was written and brought to you by COINTELPRO

Does it matter? True believers of the major religions realise they all worship the same God, and their beliefs come from the same precepts.

I believe he is a Muslim because the Muslims say is a Muslim by their rules.

NO they don't. That tradition is for those born, raised and living in those countries.

...A Muslim father has Muslim children.

So you think Islam is genetic not a BELIEF? Get real. It's a belief like your nonsense. You have to be taught to believe. President Obama was raised by his Christian Mother as a child then his Christian Grandparents through adulthood. His father was a declared Atheist, NOT Muslim at his birth.

...Muslims can't convert or they must be killed.

If you are born and raised in Afghanistan maybe, but not the USA or Europe or for that matter anyplace that isn't a Muslim nation.

Did you know how many rules Christian faiths have that have absolutely no role in the daily lives of Christians?

...The only true Koran is the one written in the original Arabic.

So? Oddly President Obama neither speaks nor reads old or modern Arabic - go figure.

Atheists tend to be LESS bigoted??

Now I've heard it all, I guess we define bigot differently.

The answer to my question is that atheists tend to be liberals and they know that if the public thinks Obama is a Muslim he hasn't a hope of being re-elected.

...A Muslim father has Muslim children.

So you think Islam is genetic not a BELIEF? Get real. It's a belief like your nonsense. You have to be taught to believe. President Obama was raised by his Christian Mother as a child then his Christian Grandparents through adulthood. His father was a declared Atheist, NOT Muslim at his birth.

...Muslims can't convert or they must be killed.

If you are born and raised in Afghanistan maybe, but not the USA or Europe or for that matter anyplace that isn't a Muslim nation.

Did you know how many rules Christian faiths have that have absolutely no role in the daily lives of Christians?

These are the rules told to me Saudi Muslims. You don't like those rules, take it up with them.
It is interesting how the 'liberals' today are so eager to attack Christians and Jews, but are very humble when doing the same for Muslims. Afraid of getting killed?
Maybe you should take that into account when attacking Christians and Jews.

well, as a person looking at the world from Western Australia I must say that this particular "discussion" has got to be the single most asinine I have ever seen on Physorg.com. Thank G/god/s/esses for the rank filter!!

Skeptic-Heretic, do you really have that much time to waste on this stuff? Come on! There's seven thousand million other people on this planet who are much more worthy of seeing practical scepticism [c/k?] at work than your antagonists here.

my god is better than your god. ah ha!

A better question would have been

Why does it matter to an atheist, or does it matter to an atheist, whether or not the public thinks Obama is a Muslim or a Christian?

I think it's more concerning that the public is so easily swayed to believe things based on hearsay and rumours as opposed to actual evidence.

Trust me: it's concerning to more than just atheists.

When anyone lies to me, and I catch them, I confront them. If they lie to me when I confront them, I wash my hands of them.

And yet you keep responding to trolls. Why is that? Compulsion? Boredom?

These are the rules told to me Saudi Muslims. You don't like those rules, take it up with them.

Obama was raised in a different sect. Say, I was talking to some xians the other day, and they said that everybody in your sect was full of crap. Somebodys not being very ecumenical are they?

Atheists tend to be LESS bigoted??

-Only by one less sect/cult/religion than you godders. But you're always optimistic about conversion aren't you? So are we.

on economic policy and the presidency

-- very few presidents have an effect on the economy in their term in office -- normally the policies they set effect changes that extend 8 years after they leave office -- but there are some notable exceptions

1) raising taxes during the start of the great depresion stifled and killed the economy
2) Reagan : lowering taxes from 80% on rich people - i don't care how much you make paying 80+% in taxes is wrong it was stifling the economy
3) Bush senior: further lowering taxes to their modest maximum of 35% on the rich the money put back into the economy by reagan and furtherd by bush gave us the the boom under clinton
4) clinton: with an agreement with the FED balanced the budget so the fed lowered rates to help the economy, but congress decides every deserves a house the effects will hit in 10 yrs
5) GBjr. : did not effect the economy in his term
6) Obama : his stimulus plan traded a depression for the worst recession ever;

On the economic "off topic" here, and for those of you who really are too dense to get what I'm about to write it's a METAPHOR:

When a meth addict is detoxing he's going to have a VERY rough go of it for a period of time. This is his body getting BETTER, it's a healthy sign after years of abuse.

The answer isn't to give him more meth to keep him from having pain...whether its an election year or not.

Heehee

On the economic "off topic" here, and for those of you who really are too dense to get what I'm about to write it's a METAPHOR:

When a meth addict is detoxing he's going to have a VERY rough go of it for a period of time. This is his body getting BETTER, it's a healthy sign after years of abuse.

The answer isn't to give him more meth to keep him from having pain...whether its an election year or not.

-and can we imagine what the religionist must endure to relinquish his epiphany fix? No pain in the 'afterlife' certainly, but the same empty, quivering feeling of cold turkey in this one, the only one. So why waste it believing in Nothing?

No bloody mary for you guys either... although I guess you could visit a planetarium. Or disneyworld. Same thing.

Why does it matter to an atheist, or does it matter to an atheist, whether or not the public thinks Obama is a Muslim or a Christian?

I have serious reservations about any leader of a secular country, Especially the most powerful one, who might need to consult his personal deity before making important decisions. Kind of like nancy reagan and her astrologers.

-Secular leaders should be a-religionist. It should be a law.

ModernMystic. MM... marylin monroe? Mickey mouse? No...
http://www.youtub...;ob=av2e
-Hes looking like lady gaga now -?

Secular leaders are without religion (there is no such word as "a-religionist", it's an ottoism)...that's the definition of secular.

So you're saying it should be a law that people who are leaders and who are secular should be secular? My God you're brilliant otto...

Secular leaders are without religion (there is not such word as "a-religionist", it's an ottoism)...that's the definition of secular.

So you're saying it should be a law that people who are leaders and who are secular should be secular? My God you're brilliant otto...

I know that. Its a burden.

I'm guessing this is what MM believes (yah- Im pre-judiced):

"What is the Christian attitude toward secular leadership? We as Christians are commanded to submit ourselves under man's law as long as it doesn't compromise God's."
http://hubpages.c...adership

-A xian leader then, if he is a good xian, might just decide to hold xian values above common sense or the legitimate concerns of others. Leading to:

17 But he, knowing their thoughts, said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and a house divided against a house falleth. Luke 11

-Due to petty, worthless, but very dangerous, reasons.

Why are you talking about Christian leaders?

You specifically stated in your post that secular leaders should be secular by legal mandate. What in blazes has that got to do with Christianity?

Unless you MEANT to say that leaders of secular COUNTRIES should be secular. Is that in fact what we were supposed to get out of that word salad you splayed in your previous post?

Now youre just PRETENDING to be dense.
"Due in part to the belief in the separation of church and state, secularists tend to prefer that politicians make decisions for secular rather than religious reasons"
http://en.wikiped...cularism

-Here is what MM would also say:

2 For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. 1Timothy 2

-which implies that only the godly can be honest. Which is dishonesty itself, straight from the bible.

Splay, a verb meaning slant, slope or spread outwards
Splay (physiology), the difference between urine threshold and saturation
-Which def were you using for your salad?

Skeptic-Heretic, do you really have that much time to waste on this stuff? Come on! There's seven thousand million other people on this planet who are much more worthy of seeing practical scepticism [c/k?] at work than your antagonists here.

I'm a rather prolific writer both within technical, theological, and political circles.

I spend a lot of time here because sites like physorg, when run properly, are of the greatest educational merit to schools and those who seek to learn more about the latest breakthroughs in science.

I don't enjoy seeing a great educational reference being shat upon by the likes of some people without the counterpoint being plainly available. Likewise, I wouldn't have stomached the Texas Board of Education meeting in which they attempted to allow equal time for creationism. To not speak out is the greatest evil and I refuse to perform it at the behest of those above.

So you really can't understand how the world splayed (to spread outwards) applies to word salad being on a screen?

Well let's see *gives otto a lollipop*, now otto words are spread out on a screen when you read them, a salad is spread out on a plate when you eat it. Hence the use of the word splayed in connection to the term "word salad". If you need further explanation I suggest looking up your 3rd grade teacher because I haven't the time to educate you further.

Now then did you ACTUALLY mean that the leaders of secular countries should be mandated to be secular themselves by law? I'm still confused on that point because you still haven't SAID that.

Religion has no place in politics, it's an extraordinarily dangerous combination to human happiness, sanity, and life in general. To me there is no more dangerous a government than a Theocracy...period.

So we DO agree then, that we have just cause to be concerned when the president of a secular democracy espouses a belief in some religion to the exclusion of all others? And that he should instead be disavowing them all... Correct?

I'm still confused on that point because you still haven't SAID that.

I think you should read my original post with your good eye.

So you really can't understand how the world splayed (to spread outwards) applies to word salad being on a screen?

Oh- I thought you meant in the other sense, for your salad-

Hey- I found areligionist in popular usage:
http://freethinke...atheist/

I spend a lot of time here because sites like physorg, when run properly, are of the greatest educational merit to schools

You mean kvatch like this...

I've already proved that you're a lying, theocratic, politically retarded psychopath using your own words. It's your turn to try the big boys game. Remember the rules, you don't get half credit for defacating on yourself.

Not a very good example to set I must say. Though kids do understand scatology I suppose-

So we DO agree then, that we have just cause to be concerned when the president of a secular democracy espouses a belief in some religion to the exclusion of all others?

Uh, no we don't. Perhaps you should look up the definition of theocracy, democracy, republic, and while your at it FANATIC.

Also might want to check out the first Amendment to the constitution...assuming you're an American.

And that he should instead be disavowing them all... Correct?

To what end? Makes no difference to me in a secular country.

I think you should read my original post with your good eye.

And I quote: "-Secular leaders should be a-religionist. It should be a law."

Which is pretty redundant since secular leaders are...well secular, or a-religionist or whatever made up word you wanna apply to it otto...you're worse than Bush that way.

Which is pretty redundant since secular leaders are...well secular, or a-religionist or whatever made up word you wanna apply to it otto...you're worse than Bush that way.

I see youre confused. Why not pray for clarity? Or at least for the knowledge of gods will and the courage to carry it out. Like the president.

http://www.youtub...=related

-IF ONLY IT WERE TRUE. But its not. Only a believer could watch this and believe it was about love and not torture and death.

Jeremiah 5:21 'Now hear this, O foolish and senseless people, Who have eyes but do not see; Who have ears but do not hear. ...'

Mark 8:18 'Having eyes, see ye not? and having ears, hear ye not? and do ye not remember?'

-The book feeds upon itself-

I see youre confused. Why not pray for clarity? Or at least for the knowledge of gods will and the courage to carry it out. Like the president.

The way you debate... you're like the marjon of atheists.

The conclusions of this study are absurd. I challenge anyone to name any right-wing "talking head", or politician that has been pushing the idea that Obama is a Muslim. There are none. These conclusions also do not account for the fact that all demographic groups except liberal Democrats have increased in their belief that he is a Muslim since he became President. The blame for this perception lies squarely with Obama.
- Before the election he said that he and Michelle do not buy gifts, either for themselves or their children, at Christmas.
- As President he has gone to church only 3 times.
- J. Wright's church, which he attended, while nominally Christian, actually preached Liberation Theology, which is a Marxist doctrine that was condemned by Pope John Paul 2 in Latin America.
- He hardly ever mentions Jesus, blames the worlds ills on Christian based countries but yet praises Islam and its "accomplishments". Go figure. People may not be as stupid as Liberals think.

The way you debate... you're like the marjon of atheists.

I am persecuted because I choose not to respond with restraint, to these...

My God you're brilliant otto...

Well let's see *gives otto a lollipop*

I suggest looking up your 3rd grade teacher because I haven't the time to educate you further.
and while your at it FANATIC.

otto...you're worse than Bush that way.

-Unless youre not criticizing my tone, which in the passage you quote was obviously sarcasm?

If you were moslem would you completely trust a president who is a practicing xian? Or would you feel a little relieved that he might secretly be islamic?

How do you think indian muslims and hindus feel about a sikh prime minister?

Poor poor "persecuted" otto. If you read up thread you'll see that I too choose not to use restraint when responded to in a certain tone. Perhaps I should practice that.

In honest answer to your question I would vote for a Muslim if he could convince me he wouldn't launch our nuclear arsenal at Israel or some other such shenanigan, and he could demonstrate he would not attempt to institute shariah law over the land.

I'd feel much better about voting for a Jew, or a Buddhist. Perhaps a better way to say it is that either of those candidates would have less to "prove" to me than a Muslim would.

Bigoted of me? Perhaps, but I think the first step in any honest discussion is admitting our prejudices, worldviews, and general baggage we bring to the table.

Now then a little off topic here. I'm fairly sure that otto or marjon or a few others here are most likely pretty good guys. People who you could sit down with, have a beer, and a good time with (continued)

I think that a lot of online posturing we get from people is just that.

God knows in my youth especially I was a totally different person in online forums than I was in real life. A lot of things said online by some people I think are said for the shock value.

For instance I don't really think otto would disenfranchise, line up and shoot, or put religious people in concentration camps if he had the power to. Although you'd never know it from some of the things he says here...in fact quite the opposite. Maybe he would, but I doubt it.

I could just be being naive, but I think most people are basically good, civil, and well behaved members of society. Were it otherwise I think civilization would collapse. I believe that includes otto and marjon...I could be wrong but there it is.

You haven't been paying attention MM. Marjon has proved himself a psychopath. I'd only want to share a beer with him if I were prepared to be stoned for suggesting people ought to show the slightest bit of empathy for others.

If the first step in any honest discussion is admitting one's prejudices, then the second is surely the critical examination of the same, to ascertain their soundness and determine whether they ought to be retained. Merely admitting one's bias does not justify it. And while I do not doubt that the bigotry you admit to above is shared by many others, you must also admit that the real objective evidence does not justify it. Once you discover a belief to be unsound, wouldn't the appropriate thing be to move beyond it?

I'd feel much better about voting for a Jew, or a Buddhist.

Only perhaps because youre not as aware of the potential for bigotry and violence in them, as in, for instance, xianity. Buddhism:
http://tkcollier....iolence/

I could just be being naive, but I think most people are basically good, civil, and well behaved members of society.

Well, what about these guys:
http://en.wikiped...nce_Army
-We are ALL capable of the most viscious and depraved of actions, given the proper conditions and threats to the people we care about.

Religion is no guarantee against this, despite what they all profess, and I would argue it only makes it easier to revert on que. We need only turn to the old testament, or any similar holy book, for explicit instructions. Even sikhs carry knives because god requires it.

For instance I don't really think otto would disenfranchise, line up and shoot, or put religious people in concentration camps if he had the power to. Although you'd never know it from some of the things he says here...in fact quite the opposite. Maybe he would, but I doubt it.

And I have NEVER suggested such a thing, but because I believe all religions should end, as millions do, MM right away wants to ask 'well, how? Like stalin did??!?'

And as I have said, I believe unfortunately that religions will cause such a miserable ruckus amongst themselves that the world will DEMAND they be outlawed. Much like the monarchies and other obsolete and dangerous power structures.

I'm just thoroughly surprised we haven't seen massive quote blocks of copy pasta from our favorite econo-troll yet.

-Or if we're lucky, maybe religions will end like this:

"And the Tigers all caught hold of each other's tails, as they wrangled and scrambled, and so they found themselves in a ring round the tree.

"And the Tigers were very, very angry, but still they would not let go of each other's tails.

"And they were so angry, that they ran round the tree, trying to eat each other up, and they ran faster and faster, till they were whirling round so fast that you couldn't see their legs at all.

"And they still ran faster and faster and faster, till they all just melted away, and there was nothing left but a great big pool of melted butter (or "ghi," as it is called in India) round the foot of the tree."

-Somehow I doubt it though.

You haven't been paying attention MM. Marjon has proved himself a psychopath. I'd only want to share a beer with him if I were prepared to be stoned for suggesting people ought to show the slightest bit of empathy for others.

If the first step in any honest discussion is admitting one's prejudices, then the second is surely the critical examination of the same, to ascertain their soundness and determine whether they ought to be retained. Merely admitting one's bias does not justify it. And while I do not doubt that the bigotry you admit to above is shared by many others, you must also admit that the real objective evidence does not justify it. Once you discover a belief to be unsound, wouldn't the appropriate thing be to move beyond it?

My good sir, you are not only very intelligent, but very wise...and that is a very RARE combination.

It's a pity that I probably will never get the chance to sit down and have a beer with you :-)

Otto, I don't know what to say.

Good luck with trying to outlaw an idea, it's been tried, it doesn't work very well.

If religion goes away it will go quietly, and probably never totally...much like the concept of a flat Earth.

God I'm sounding more like an atheist every day. You people are a bad influence :P

Otto, I don't know what to say.

Good luck with trying to outlaw an idea, it's been tried, it doesn't work very well.

If religion goes away it will go quietly, and probably never totally...much like the concept of a flat Earth.

God I'm sounding more like an atheist every day. You people are a bad influence :P

Fair enough. Maybe you can have theme parks.
http://www.univer...ypotter/
-Just as long as they provide a STRONG disclaimer: 'For entertainment purposes ONLY...The concept of eternal life is not to be misconstrued as an actual offer or contract in return for service or payment...We hope you enjoyed your visit to vatican city and please come again soon...' -or somesuch.

Theme parks...sigh.

Jesus is rolling over in his grave...oh wait...

Yes, some Christians DO have a sense of humor :-)

What do progressives, communists, and other liberal activist have in common? Lying, twisting the truth, twisting terms, hate, and violence. This report is twisted. Instead of trying to prove Obama isn't a muslim, it asks why people think he is a muslim. This report is nothing more than the media bias against anyone who is against Obama.

I do not think Obama is a muslim or a christian. He like most radical progressives hate traditional christiantiy and will do all he can to destroy it. He will align himself with muslims to get their support but he doesnt understand radical muslims and thinks he can use them.

SH - you say you know so much about history and religion, yet time and again your ignornace is shown.

Why do many people think Obama is Muslim? Because being different helps others to hate you. In this country, Muslims are widely hated due to recent events in our history. Republicans hate Obama just as they'd hate any democratic president. Labeling him with the "Muslim" tag makes it much easier to hate him and makes him more different. Also, the fact that he is half black doesn't sit well with some folks either. This only strengthens their hate and reinforces the Muslim tag. Start the rumor that he drowns puppies and this will stick just as easily.

Instead of trying to prove Obama isn't a muslim, it asks why people think he is a muslim. This report is nothing more than the media bias against anyone who is against Obama.

Or it's a report about the way the human mind works to seperate people along the lines of discrimination when such discrimination satisfies one's world view.

I do not think Obama is a muslim or a christian. He like most radical progressives hate traditional christiantiy and will do all he can to destroy it. He will align himself with muslims to get their support but he doesnt understand radical muslims and thinks he can use them.

My point is manifest in your statement. Thanks for making it easy.

SH - you say you know so much about history and religion, yet time and again your ignornace is shown.

Ad hominem attacks won't help in exemplifying your points. Especially when they are demonstrably false.

SH - How many times have I proven you false? Too many to count....

I dont care if a black skinned person is president (I don't believe in race other than the human race.) But when the MSM hides his worts, his connections, and bashes his oponents, I cry foul. If he was a white skinned republican acting the way he does, I would say the same things about him as I do know. The MSM would persecute him as would you. The MSM and you would rightly call him a racist, and incompetent.

SH, Otto, and other progressives here, do you think he would have been given such a free ride if he was a republican? The hardest question he is given by the MSM is if he wants ice in his water.

SH - How many times have I proven you false? Too many to count....

I don't recall recanting, which I do when I'm shown to be wrong. Could you provide an example?

The MSM would persecute him as would you. The MSM and you would rightly call him a racist, and incompetent.

You seem to assume that I'm some great fan of our current President. That'd be a false assumption. I also try not to call people who I've never traded words with by the moniker of racist.

SH, Otto, and other progressives here, do you think he would have been given such a free ride if he was a republican?

The fact you call Otto and I progressive is rather humorous, thanks for the laugh. As for the stance of the media within politics I could care less. The MSM has been corrupted by one party or the other ever since they took on the doctrine of "it's better to be first than correct."

It was ABC and NBC that asked Obama about his ties to William Ayers long before Faux news even smelt the weathermen.

"The director general of the BBC admitted Thursday that his organisation had been guilty of a "massive bias to the left" but said "a completely different generation" of journalists now works at the broadcaster. "
http://www.breitb...rticle=1
And if Rupert Murdock had not been so wildly successful in keeping an audience, would BBC have changed?

I assume your MSM is one of these?:
"Definition. MSM, Mainstream Media. MSM, Men who have Sex with Men (health/medical). MSM, Methylsulfonylmethane. MSM, Morehouse School of Medicine ..."

SH, Otto, and other progressives here, do you think he would have been given such a free ride if he was a republican? The hardest question he is given by the MSM is if he wants ice in his water.

Otto believes in Predestination; the kind Designed and Orchestrated by People who can foresee a probable future and Plan and Prepare for it.
Cont.

The wonderful thing about a 2 or 3 party democracy is that liberals or conservatives can be given power to do the things which need to be done at the Proper Time, while maintaining their respective identities.

For instance Roosevelt the liberal was in charge when socialist New Deal programs needed to be enacted, and also to foist the lie that the US would remain isolationist while obviously preparing for war. Conservatives are installed when taxes need to be raised; libs are given power when taxes need to be cut.

The people, obviously, vote for who theyre told to... candidates are obviously picked to assist with this, as in a mumbling McCain and his glamorous sidekick (whose persona has since changed- the Wisdom of choosing exemplary Actors to play these Parts).

-Economic Cycles are Inevitable. And so it behooves the People in Charge to Plan and Engineer them, so that they may benefit rather than endanger.
Cont.

Obama the Character, the spokesmodel, the persona, the Actor, is just as radical as he needs to be to do the things he has been doing; because it was absolutely Essential that these things be done, at the Proper Time and in the Proper Manner, to further the Workings of Empire in the maintenance of overall Stability and Progress. For the Good of All.

We'll have to wait and see what Providence (that is, the Hand of Man, the only true Intelligent Design) has in store for us next.

This is what otto believes.

Conservatives are installed when taxes need to be raised; libs are given power when taxes need to be cut.

Waaaaaaaa! Otto sure screwed that one up!

Conservatives are installed when taxes need to be raised; libs are given power when taxes need to be cut.

Waaaaaaaa! Otto sure screwed that one up!

You could just claim you were using the original, French definitions of the words. You have an...interesting theory, otto. I'm not sure how much evidence there is to support it, but at least you don't advocate for the murder or ostracism of those who think you're a bit wacky.

Thanks.
For evidence I like to start with Ecclesiates. Solomon, the wisest and most powerful ruler the world had ever seen, is in despair because he cant guarantee that all he has created will survive him.

-And then the heavenly chorus chimes in with a Solution:
http://www.bibleg...sion=NIV
-If things are Inevitable then they absolutely must happen at the proper time and in the proper manner.
"8 a [Proper] time to love and a time to hate,
a [Proper] time for war and a time for peace."

-For instance, if wars can be Planned and the results Predetermined, then the benefits can be immeasurable and the threats to what is truly vital can be eliminated.

-This must have been a very easy sell to early leaders who shared mutual problems of overpop, limited resources, and contentious young troublemakers among the people. Staging war for mutual benefit was an irresistable proposition.

I envision a Tribe of Leaders, intermarried, dedicated to providing a secure Future for their offspring by preserving this applied Philosophy of Rule over the people; Shepherds and their flock, an Imperial meme, wildly successful, expanding and being shared in secret worldwide.

We can perhaps see it in operation directly at times, as in wars among greek city-states under the direction of the Delphic oracular priesthood, or amongst the euro dynasties as coordinated from the holy see; a true organized crime family, in control of an entire continent, dividing the people up and setting them against one another in creative ways.

For the people were always the true Enemy of enduring Stability and Progress.

I think the bible only professed to offer salvation to the people in return for their devotion, while actually providing explicit instructions on how to save civilization instead, to the Few in Charge who actually knew how to read it and what it was for.

Evidence? Circumstantial usually, as Arrangements would always be made in secret by Masters of Secrecy, selected and trained for life, the best the world could provide. Inference and Logic. I like to think of it as Forensic Philosophy.

Start the rumor that he drowns puppies and this will stick just as easily.

Wait... Obama drowns puppies?!

Yet ANOTHER fact hidden by the Liberal Mainstream Media.

/s

With the demagogues Limbaugh and Beck fanning the flames of ignorance every day while the cheerleader for the extreme Christian fundamentalist right, Palin, spreads bigotry and intolerence, the simple minded are ready to believe anything. In the meantime, the Tea Party is capitalizing on the virulent spread of fear and ignorance to try and returrn us to the enlightened days of Herbert Hoover. A Large portion of Congress has abandoned running the country in favor of obstructionism and the lights of knowledge and reason are in danger of being snuffed out.

reading many of the comments posted above - I can see exactly where this report is coming from.

I suppose the ignorance and stupidity expressed in the people surveyed is not restricted to just the U.S. It is a crying shame that only a few people that have responded to this article have actually noticed the study done.

What matters is that when people are not favourably inclined towards someone that they will leap upon any little thing to entrench there position even further.

No wonder we fight wars and persecute minorities and argue about stupid useless things like Christianity and Islam endlessly.

IF only we could find some way to do something useful with the information this study hilights.

Calling Obama a Muslim is an act of containment. Branding him as a Muslim (by folks who think he is soft on Islamic extremism) causes him to think twice about doing things that fuel this perception.

The "smear campaign" terminology suggests some manipulation from above. Sorry Mr. Ph.D., you're projecting the methodology of your Demshevik masters onto your opponents. This is grassroots, conclusions by induction from simple observation, not orchestration. He's just another piece of a bigger propaganda machine, and thinks the American population is too stupid to notice. You'll see the answer to it in November.

Calling Obama a Muslim is an act of containment. Branding him as a Muslim (by folks who think he is soft on Islamic extremism) causes him to think twice about doing things that fuel this perception.

What evidence you have that Obama cares what the voters are telling him?
What does a Harvard professor care about what his students tell him?

Trekgeek1 said it better than I could have:

"Why do many people think Obama is Muslim? Because being different helps others to hate you. In this country, Muslims are widely hated due to recent events in our history. Republicans hate Obama just as they'd hate any democratic president. Labeling him with the "Muslim" tag makes it much easier to hate him and makes him more different. Also, the fact that he is half black doesn't sit well with some folks either. This only strengthens their hate and reinforces the Muslim tag. Start the rumor that he drowns puppies and this will stick just as easily."

Then how come he bows when shaking hands with muslim leaders?

Trekgeek1 said it better than I could have:

"Why do many people think Obama is Muslim? Because being different helps others to hate you. In this country, Muslims are widely hated due to recent events in our history. Republicans hate Obama just as they'd hate any democratic president. Labeling him with the "Muslim" tag makes it much easier to hate him and makes him more different. Also, the fact that he is half black doesn't sit well with some folks either. This only strengthens their hate and reinforces the Muslim tag. Start the rumor that he drowns puppies and this will stick just as easily."

You guys are simple. Like "Republicans are stupid or evil, otherwise they would agree with me..." Brilliant. That kind of philosophy earns one a place alongside the racists you so despise.

Nobody is mentioning Sharia Law. Which is the issue. The child of a muslim is a muslim. Converting from Islam is called aposty and it is punishable by death.
It doesn't matter what I think, or you think or what the guy doing the polling thinks or what Obama thinks or says.
According to Sharia Law Obama is a Muslim.

Then how come he bows when shaking hands with muslim leaders?

@ Onceler37
How about a picture of George Bush kissing the Saudi Arabian king on the mouth and holding hands like a teen age lover, go to http://prophetofd...ands.jpg What does that make Bush?

Makes bowing downright acceptable.

Like "Republicans are stupid or evil..."

Well not all of them, but some of them say some pretty stupid things.

"President Washington, President Lincoln, President Wilson, President Roosevelt have all authorized electronic surveillance on a far broader scale."--Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, testifying before Congress

I feel the best way to ensure Americans' freedom is to tighten restrictions on that freedom in any way possible. Only through wiretaps, illegal searches and seizures, unfettered government intrusion, a controlled media and a complete crackdown on free speech can we ensure the liberties of all people." -- Attorney General John Ashcroft

I think gay marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman" -- Arnold Schwarzenegger

Now Democrats are no smarter, and this is the problem. We all elect morons.

According to Sharia Law Obama is a Muslim.

Obama's biological father was/is an atheist.

I stopped visiting NewScientist website because they started pushing political and social agenda articles disguised as 'science'.

I find it truly offensive that any 'science' magazine would feel the need to prop up political candidates via social experiments that someone wants to label as 'science'.

A poll is not science: it is opinion. An article on a 'poll' and 'experiment' about people's opinions whose methods are not proven to be NON-BIASED and has not been critically reviewed is totally bogus.

An article designed to create political furor, as this one has done, IS NOT SCIENCE.

Physorg has be a refreshing site that has focused on SCIENCE, please, editors, refrain from publishing any article which blatantly pushes an agenda.

How subtle is this, the article concludes BO is falsely believed to be a Muslim, but the article just dangles and LEAVES IN PLACE this one: McCain is senile.

This article, IMO, is trash, is political and is not science, it is pop-culture-junk.

"Islam cannot be separated from the state because it guides us through every detail of running the state and our lives. Muslims have no choice but to reject secularism for it excludes the law of Allah. "
http://www.islaam...x?id=559
One reason for the concerns regarding Islam.

I agree with Mr. Mike--a lame article about a lame subject. I don't hate Obama because people think he might be a Muslim. I really would be more likely to hate him if poeple thought he might be a Scientologist. Capture that, 'pubbies!

Obama's biological father was/is an atheist.

Snopes does not agree.

Obama's biological father was/is an atheist.

Snopes does not agree.

To add one more bit, Obama Sr.s father was a Muslim, and by Muslim laws, Obama Sr. was as Muslim whether he chose to be or not, by Muslim law.
Sources also say he was a socialist, as was his mother.
http://blog.mises...readers/

Obama's biological father was/is an atheist.

Snopes does not agree.

To add one more bit, Obama Sr.s father was a Muslim, and by Muslim laws, Obama Sr. was as Muslim whether he chose to be or not, by Muslim law.
Sources also say he was a socialist, as was his mother.
http://blog.mises...readers/

What muslem 'laws' exactly are you referring to? Are these universal Sunni/Sufi/Shiite etc 'laws' and do they pertain specifically to the press and his family? No heresay now, you should be able to source this info.

Also, socialism is not the future, dontbworry. Islamists hate socialists.

Does it matter? True believers of the major religions realise they all worship the same God, and their beliefs come from the same precepts.

TRUE believers realize that only THEY worship god in the proper manner, using the proper holy books and rituals and prayers, and that heretics who falsely worship god endanger not only themselves but the TRUE worshippers as well.

It's in the bible ad infinitum which all TRUE believers know and follow to the letter (as well as the faithful in other religions their own books). Even Aaron and Moses were denied entry into the holy land because they screwed up only just a little bit.

God is a stickler for details. There is no doubt that, at most, only ONE religion out of the thousands which exist today, is the one your god will accept. That is, if he exists (he does not). But good luck figuring out which one is the one and only one.

Just remember, your eternal soul (which doesn't exist) is at stake.

Just cracks me up to listen to atheists tell others what their religion says to them, or means to them.

Just cracks me up to listen to atheists tell others what their religion says to them, or means to them.

Aw jeez MM, I was standing up for your religion, which is obviously the only real and TRUE one (or maybe not). Sleep well my friend.

Marjon. Do me the honor of answering my questions. What sura, which sects, what caliph issued which bull declaring this to be a universal pan-Islamic LAW?

Just cracks me up to listen to atheists tell others what their religion says to them, or means to them.

Aw jeez MM, I was standing up for your religion, which is obviously the only real and TRUE one (or maybe not). Sleep well my friend.

You believe your religion is the only true one.

Just cracks me up to listen to atheists tell others what their religion says to them, or means to them.

Aw jeez MM, I was standing up for your religion, which is obviously the only real and TRUE one (or maybe not). Sleep well my friend.

You believe your religion is the only true one.

Ich warte.

Wow, otto thanks for standing up for "my religion".

Just to make sure you got it right, how about you describe my religion for me. I wouldn't want you standing up for something you don't understand...

I think you must have a few things wrong about "my religion" just from your post. In fact there's very little in your post that applies to my religion.

Maybe you're not as good a psychic as you think you are, but you're in "good company" as most atheists I know are just as sure they know what "my religion" is and are just as bad at divining it.

In fact I know a host of Christians who assume they know what "my religion" is and are just as wrong as atheists. I guess believing in Christ doesn't make you a good psychic either.

Just to make sure you got it right, how about you describe my religion for me. I wouldn't want you standing up for something you don't understand...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but your religion is the one you feel will bring you closest to god, the one which, when you practice it, makes you FEEL closest to god, and the one that gives you the most comfort.

And it's based on certain rules, certain rituals, such as time and method of prayer, service perhaps, maybe genuflection and sacrifice (chickens?).

Something like that. Am I right?

he one that gives you the most comfort. Am I right?

No.
"In Mere Christianity Lewis wrote: "If Christianity were something we were making up, of course we could make it easier. But it is not. We cannot compete, in simplicity, with people who are inventing religions. How could we? We are dealing with Fact. Of course anyone can be simple if he has no facts to bother about." "

he one that gives you the most comfort. Am I right?

No.

What he said.

Specifically to that part of your post and most of the rest of it.

Maybe if you want some insight...and this is just a suggestion...you should ask more questions instead of assuming you know everything.

Again, just a suggestion.

I'll be honest with you though, and save you your next post...I'm not going to answer a lot of questions about my religion YOU might ask because I don't think you're honestly interested in knowing about it. If you ever get to a place you are I'd be happy to give you an e-mail address where we can discuss it in as much detail as you want.

Things which might define it as unique and sufficiently different from other belief systems which are more or less structured or formal than yours. Close?

"In religion, as in war and everything else, comfort is one thing you cannot get by looking for it. If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end: if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth -- only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin with and, in the end, despair. " CS Lewis
Martin Luther did not seek or obtain comfort challenging the Pope.

Things which might define it as unique and sufficiently different from other belief systems which are more or less structured or formal than yours. Close?

I can tell you this much, I've never met two Christians who agree on everything Christian.

Does that help you get my point any better? If you'd ever tried to have an HONEST discussion with someone about their religion you'd ALREADY know this though...so somehow I don't think you'll ever understand, nor will you ever care to.

I'll be honest with you though, and save you your next post...I'm not going to answer a lot of questions about my religion YOU might ask because I don't think you're honestly interested in knowing about it.

Correct.

I forgot- it's a belief system which makes YOU feel unique because YOU assembled it to suit YOUR own personality and the things which happened in YOUR life.

As I've stated here and in other discussions we've had, most any believer will tell you that god does not appreciate improvisation, as evidenced in not one but most ALL of his written works and institutions, which at most only ONE of either has a chance of being even close to correct.

By the way margins a woman.

Well that's your opinion otto, I OTOH don't pretend to know the mind of God.

Most atheists would not be as arrogant to assume they do either, because even if they don't believe in him they at least grasp the concept.

As to the disagreements believers have within their own interpretations of their respective religious writings...so what?

Scientists disagree on all manner of things. Some even disagree on what's considered "settled science". Does this invalidate science?

I consider both to be a search for the truth. One more extrinsic and objective, the other more intrinsic and subjective.

One question I have for any atheists who care to answer is:

Even if you don't believe in God, do you not believe in spirituality? Not in the sense that you have a "spirit", or spirituality with a capital S, but do you consider anything in the human experience as spiritual?

"In religion, as in war and everything else, comfort is one thing you cannot get by looking for it. If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end: if you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth -- only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin with and, in the end, despair. " CS Lewis
Martin Luther did not seek or obtain comfort challenging the Pope.

Wrong book...

3Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, 4who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves have received from God. -2cor1

-Hey here's something which should give you a little comfort:
http://m.cbn.com/cbnnews/world/2010/August/Islamization-of-Paris-a-Warning-to-the-West/

Most atheists would not be as arrogant to assume they do either, because even if they don't believe in him they at least grasp the concept.

Don't HAVE to. It's IN the BOOK. Most any religionist will tell you the things I've told you.

Scientists disagree on all manner of things. Some even disagree on what's considered "settled science". Does this invalidate science?

They're not in danger of eternal damnation. Unless they believe they are.

Go look in the mirror sir. What you see is a heretic. I suggest you Repent. The end is nigh.

Most atheists would not be as arrogant to assume they do either, because even if they don't believe in him they at least grasp the concept.

Don't HAVE to. It's IN the BOOK. Most any religionist will tell you the things I've told you.

Go look in the mirror. What you see is a heretic. Repent. The end is nigh.

And I have and will tell any "religionist" who tells me what you just told me that they're wrong. Just as I'd tell any scientist who told me they had it "all figured out" that they are wrong.

Most atheists would not be as arrogant to assume they do either, because even if they don't believe in him they at least grasp the concept.

Don't HAVE to. It's IN the BOOK. Most any religionist will tell you the things I've told you.

Go look in the mirror. What you see is a heretic. Repent. The end is nigh.

And I have and will tell any "religionist" who tells me what you just told me that they're wrong. Just as I'd tell any scientist who told me they had it "all figured out" that they are wrong.

Macht's güt. Glad I could help.

Even if you don't believe in God, do you not believe in spirituality? Not in the sense that you have a "spirit", or spirituality with a capital S, but do you consider anything in the human experience as spiritual?

Let me ask you, what good is it? Why do you feel the need for it? You dont even know what it might be. You just, I don't know, FEEL the need for something which might be related to the fear of death or fear of the unknown, but you're not sure. You just WANT.

I suggest these feelings are manifestations of withdrawal. You're spending too much time here. Go have some root beer.

There is NO metaphysics. Only physics.

There is NO metaphysics. Only physics.

Physics still can't explain many valid observations.
How would you explain those observations?
"# Normal science "is predicated on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like" (5)—scientists take great pains to defend that assumption.
# To this end, "normal science often suppresses fundamental novelties because they are necessarily subversive of its basic commitments" (5)."
"New assumptions (paradigms/theories) require the reconstruction of prior assumptions and the reevaluation of prior facts. This is difficult and time consuming. It is also strongly resisted by the established community."
http://des.emory....uhn.html

Physics still can't explain many valid observations.

NOT YET. And many 'valid observations' you may be referring to could well be delusions or swamp gas. Or wishful thinking or politics or deception or simply nonexistent.

# To this end, "normal science often suppresses fundamental novelties because they are necessarily subversive of its basic commitments" (5)."

Yeah so? From that you conclude that god must be real? He's not.

Even if you don't believe in God, do you not believe in spirituality? Not in the sense that you have a "spirit", or spirituality with a capital S, but do you consider anything in the human experience as spiritual?

Nope. I also don't see why you're trying to manufacture a difference between the belief in a deity and 'spirituality'. Surely they're different sides of the same coin. In any case, my answer is an emphatic NO. We're all just meat animated by the laws of physics, not metaphysics.

We're all just meat animated by the laws of physics, not metaphysics.

What are your definitions of "animated" and "metaphysics"?
Metaphysics are part of philosophy. Philosophy is part of human culture. Human culture does animate humans.

Physics still can't explain many valid observations.

NOT YET.

And who said atheists don't have faith in their religion?

And who said atheists don't have faith in their religion?

You're a moron.

What are your definitions of "animated" and "metaphysics"?

I thought my intent was clear, but I'll elaborate:
Animated - Endowed with life;
Metaphysics - Without material form or substance; Abstract theory or talk with no basis in reality;

Physics still can't explain many valid observations.

NOT YET.

And who said atheists don't have faith in their religion?

My 'faith' is rather confidence in a system which has consistently produced knowledge which can be applied to do real things.

Your faith in the King of Vapors has never produced or explained anything of substance beyond providing political expediency and economic support for priests and vicars. And making people like you FEEL good. Kind of exactly like Kant.

Marjon. Do me the honor of answering my questions. What sura, which sects, what caliph issued which bull declaring this to be a universal pan-Islamic LAW?

No answer. So we can assume marDoh! has little knowledge of Islam, her mortal enemy, and is only blowing buttsmoke she inhaled from rightwing bloggers and Glenn beck. 'Know thine enemy' madam. You shall soon be meeting them on the Plain of Megiddo.

My 'faith' is rather confidence in a system which has consistently produced knowledge which can be applied to do real things.

That is what makes peoples religious faith stronger.

My observations about Islam are from Saudi Muslims, the 'real' Muslims.

And making people like you FEEL good.

Knowledge makes you feel bad? If your atheistic pursuit of truth does not make you happy, why do it? Your wild conspiracy theories seem to provide some smug satisfaction. They make you FEEL good.

My 'faith' is rather confidence in a system which has consistently produced knowledge which can be applied to do real things.

That is what makes peoples religious faith stronger.

My observations about Islam are from Saudi Muslims, the 'real' Muslims.

There are 1.2 billion muslims in the world.
Saudi Arabia has a population of 24 million.

That's less than 2% of all Muslims that you are basing your information on. Would you like me to base my ideology behind Christianity on less than 2% of Christians?

The Keeper of the Two Holy Mosques is the King of Saudi Arabia.
Mohammad was from Mecca.
Islam is definitely NOT a democracy so population is immaterial.

The Keeper of the Two Holy Mosques is the King of Saudi Arabia.
Mohammad was from Mecca.
Islam is definitely NOT a democracy so population is immaterial.

And if I substitue the Pope for the King of Saud and Christianity for Islam, we have the exact same discussion.

So answer the question.

That is what makes peoples religious faith stronger.

Maybe they should try steroids instead. Drugs are more dependable than 'faith' and a lot less dangerous.

The Keeper of the Two Holy Mosques is the King of Saudi Arabia.
Mohammad was from Mecca.
Islam is definitely NOT a democracy so population is immaterial.

So then, by extrapolation, I assume you do everything the pope tells you to?

Dang SH beat me to it-

Knowledge makes you feel bad?

Nooooooo, real knowledge makes me feel good because it's REAL, not pretend. Understand?

The Keeper of the Two Holy Mosques is the King of Saudi Arabia.
Mohammad was from Mecca.
Islam is definitely NOT a democracy so population is immaterial.

And if I substitue the Pope for the King of Saud and Christianity for Islam, we have the exact same discussion.

So answer the question.

It is not the same.
There is no Pope in Jerusalem.

The Keeper of the Two Holy Mosques is the King of Saudi Arabia.
Mohammad was from Mecca.
Islam is definitely NOT a democracy so population is immaterial.

And if I substitue the Pope for the King of Saud and Christianity for Islam, we have the exact same discussion.

So answer the question.

It is not the same.
There is no Pope in Jerusalem.

WTF does that have to do with anything? You totally dodged that question by saying something that has nothing to do with anything. Good thinking Marjon!

The Keeper of the Two Holy Mosques is the King of Saudi Arabia.
Mohammad was from Mecca.
Islam is definitely NOT a democracy so population is immaterial.

And if I substitue the Pope for the King of Saud and Christianity for Islam, we have the exact same discussion.

So answer the question.

It is not the same.
There is no Pope in Jerusalem.

WTF does that have to do with anything? You totally dodged that question by saying something that has nothing to do with anything. Good thinking Marjon!

The assumption that the Pope and the King of Saudi Arabia are equivalent is not true. What dodge?

Here's the thing about arguing with marjon. he demands the ability to make the sloppiest, most far-fetched analogies his fevered little mind can come up with, where if someone responds to him with an analogy, if the tiniest, most irrelevant detail of it doesn't jive in his mind, then you're an atheistic socialist who he wants to 'defend' himself against by sending gangs of Patriots and the Faithful to torture and murder you because you dared to disagree with his religious/political/economic assertions.

Would you like me to base my ideology behind Christianity on less than 2% of Christians?

I expect Christians to base their ideology on the New Testament.
Considering the NT was written by a few people, that is significantly less than 2%. So, please, base your ideology on the NT just as Luther and many others have done.

Here's the thing about arguing with marjon. he demands the ability to make the sloppiest, most far-fetched analogies his fevered little mind can come up with, where if someone responds to him with an analogy, if the tiniest, most irrelevant detail of it doesn't jive in his mind, then you're an atheistic socialist who he wants to 'defend' himself against by sending gangs of Patriots and the Faithful to torture and murder you because you dared to disagree with his religious/political/economic assertions.

People like you, SH and others claim to be rational and precise. Why shouldn't I hold them to their claims?

So Marjon, the Pope is head of the Catholic church, and he does NOT represent ALL christians. The same is true of myriad Muslim leaders. For instance there are numerous grand ayatollahs and they all represent and speak for different people with different beliefs and interpretations of Islam. I'd say the burdon is now on your shoulder to prove that the analogy between king saud and the pope is not valid and to stat exactly why. And sorry, the fact that the Pope doesn't live in Jerusalem doesn't count nor mean anything at all as neither does the king of Saudi Arabia. The FACT of the matter is that most muslims don't consider the king of saud to be their spiritual leader so to say that Saudi's represent all muslims is EXACTLY like saying the pope represents all Christians in that both are factually incorrect statements. Try again Marjon

So Marjon, the Pope is head of the Catholic church, and he does NOT represent ALL christians. The same is true of myriad Muslim leaders. For instance there are numerous grand ayatollahs and they all represent and speak for different people with different beliefs and interpretations of Islam. I'd say the burdon is now on your shoulder to prove that the analogy between king saud and the pope is not valid and to stat exactly why. And sorry, the fact that the Pope doesn't live in Jerusalem doesn't count nor mean anything at all as neither does the king of Saudi Arabia. The FACT of the matter is that most muslims don't consider the king of saud to be their spiritual leader so to say that Saudi's represent all muslims is EXACTLY like saying the pope represents all Christians in that both are factually incorrect statements. Try again Marjon

Just ask the Saudi's if they are the 'good' Muslims and they will tell you.

ask catholics who are the 'good' christians and they will tell you.

I expect Christians to base their ideology on the New Testament.

Margun forgets how little she knows about the NT:

"17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. 18And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. 19I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

-And Peter did thus begat the church and all the popes who followed, even as his gilded throne hangs on the wall behind the alter in the most holy basilica which bears his name, in glorious but silent testimony to the fact; and Jesus saw that it was good.

"The other popular interpretation of the rock is that Jesus was referring not to Peter, but to Peter’s confession of faith in verse 16: “You are the Christ, the son of the living God.” Jesus had never explicitly taught Peter and the other disciples the fullness of His identity, and He recognized that God had sovereignly opened Peter’s eyes and revealed to him who Jesus really was. His confession of Christ as Messiah poured forth from him, a heart-felt declaration of Peter’s personal faith in Jesus. It is this personal faith in Christ which is the hallmark of the true Christian. "

When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi 9 he asked his disciples, "Who do people say that the Son of Man is?"
14
They replied, "Some say John the Baptist, 10 others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15
He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?"
16
11 Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God."
17
Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
19
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
20
15 Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.

Why is it a "smear campaign" to call someone a Muslim?

Let's see, between my post and margins, she had 3 hours to bone up on the NT as regards to the church. How about a similar effort on my earlier question as to the source of your claims to obamas precarious apostasy? Your Saudi kings are heresay- how about providing evidence of lineage to legitimate authority? And a quotable source please- they have the Quran online in English. I bet we both learn something. (By the way- nobody said any of your bible stuff because none of them ever existed- but if Simon Peter did he was certainly an Arschlecker)

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church

While otto1923/otto1932 and marjon are quarreling about the holier exegesis of this ancient text I'd just like to remind the spectators that "Petros" is a Greek male first name and "petra" (feminine grammatical gender) is a Greek word for "stone". The ancients were fond of playing on words. (As they had no smilies.)

And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church

While otto1923/otto1932 and marjon are quarreling about the holier exegesis of this ancient text I'd just like to remind the spectators that "Petros" is a Greek male first name and "petra" (feminine grammatical gender) is a Greek word for "stone". The ancients were fond of playing on words. (As they had no smilies.)

I actually knew that. So 'peter' may have been just a literary contrivance, more evidence that the bible is fiction.

Poor Otto exploded one night but luckily arose from the ashes again, good as new, about 3 days hence-

Hey marjun- party time!
http://www.csmoni...s-troops

-Megiddo is THAT way ===>

I'm actually sitting across the street from a mosque at the moment... doesn't look too sinister... They've got the minaret wanker symbol too, just like the Egyptian obelisk or the campanile... What is the Jewish wanker symbol though? They deface the wanker. But as Jesus said:

"28 For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
29 But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God." rom2

-Perhaps he was a little miffed, having been defaced himself as a child.

before one researches a false belief, one has to prove that the belief is false...

and even more so,one has to understand the tenets of the ideas and ideology as well.

"Speaking is a means to achieve objectives. If a praiseworthy aim is attainable through both telling the truth and lying, it is unlawful to accomplish through lying because there is no need for it. When it is possible to achieve such an aim by lying but not by telling the truth, it is permissible to lie if attaining the goal is permissible." (Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, The Reliance of the Traveller, translated by Nuh Ha Mim Keller, amana publications, 1997, section r8.2, page 745)

Bowing does'nt help either...

WTF are you saying? Your posts sound like riddles and they're wasting screen space. The whole point of the article is to inform the results of the their study which has to do with how people's views can be falsely influenced by different sociological factors.

@ shootist: So, logically, Jesus is still a Jew? @ ArtflDgr: BUsh bowed, too:
http://www.examin...owed-too

I believe he is a Muslim because the Muslims say is a Muslim by their rules.
A Muslim father has Muslim children.
Muslims can't convert or they must be killed.
The only true Koran is the one written in the original Arabic.
These are their rules.

marjon, by your standard I and my parents and grandparents are Calvinists because the fundamentalist church my grandparents attended had roots in Calvinism, and we are not Americans, we are Welsh. I can assure you, I am not a card-carrying Calvinist. Nor do I consider myself a Welshman, I am an American. Why do you refuse Obama the same latitude?

marjon, by your standard I and my parents and grandparents are Calvinists because the fundamentalist church my grandparents attended had roots in Calvinism, and we are not Americans, we are Welsh. I can assure you, I am not a card-carrying Calvinist. Nor do I consider myself a Welshman, I am an American. Why do you refuse Obama the same latitude?

They are not my standards.
How many Calvinists would be motivated to kill you for denying your religion?
There ARE Muslims who WILL kill so it does add a bit more weight to the discussion.
Atheists here are very comfortable attacking Christians because they won't hunt them down and kill them.
Muslims will. Is that why atheists don't say much about Islam?

How many Calvinists would be motivated to kill you for denying your religion?

True calvinists are smug because they believe they received gods grace at birth, while others were born condemned and cant be saved no matter what they do.

Muslims will. Is that why atheists don't say much about Islam?

Otto attacks all religions. How about this:
To paraphrase billy carter, muslims can kiss my ass.

-There are xians who will kill, make no mistake about that:
http://en.wikiped...errorism

Marmajon parrots xian rightwing lies about obomba and his morisco condition. Where is your evidence? Put up or be a liar.

I caught "Dr." Terry Jones on CNN this morning: http://www.cnn.co...l?hpt=T2

Check out the video! 'Said he hoped moderate muslims would turn out at his book burning, seriously. This guy seems impervious to logic. I kept thinking during the interview, does he know or care that this may offend xians too? It offends me as an American. It offends a couple of my friends in the military. According to him, we'll just have to deal with it, "they" just have to be sent a message. Some compassion for this 'minister'.

They are not my standards.
How many Calvinists would be motivated to kill you for denying your religion?
There ARE Muslims who WILL kill so it does add a bit more weight to the discussion.
Atheists here are very comfortable attacking Christians because they won't hunt them down and kill them.
Muslims will. Is that why atheists don't say much about Islam?

Did you hear about Draw Mohammad day? The Atheist movement inspiring people to mock the religion of peace? It resulted in the banning of facebook and youtube in multiple Islamic Theocracies? No?

You're saying ridiculous things again. Actually again might not be reasonable, perhaps I should say "still.

"Van Gogh worked with Somali-born writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali to produce the film Submission, which was critical of the treatment of women in Islam. On 2 November 2004 he was assassinated by Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch-Moroccan Muslim. "
"she (Ayaan Hirsi Ali)began to formulate her critique of Islam and Islamic culture, published many news articles, and became a frequent speaker on television news programs and public debate forums. She wrote up her ideas in a book entitled De Zoontjesfabriek (The Son Factory). It was at this time that she first began to receive death threats.[22]"

"Van Gogh worked with Somali-born writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali to produce the film Submission, which was critical of the treatment of women in Islam. On 2 November 2004 he was assassinated by Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch-Moroccan Muslim. "
"she (Ayaan Hirsi Ali)began to formulate her critique of Islam and Islamic culture, published many news articles, and became a frequent speaker on television news programs and public debate forums. She wrote up her ideas in a book entitled De Zoontjesfabriek (The Son Factory). It was at this time that she first began to receive death threats.[22]"

And she still criticizes Islam today. In addition to that, she's an atheist. You've disproved your own point, again.

"The Council announced Tuesday that it has invited local imams to perform Islamic invocations at the beginning of the Council meetings in September.

Though meetings don't regularly begin with any form of prayer, an email from the Common Council called it "an act of solidarity with our Muslim brothers and sisters.""
http://www.nbccon...499.html
Where is the outrage and ACLU?
One atheist has the courage. Where are all the rest?

Where is the outrage and ACLU?
One atheist has the courage. Where are all the rest?

No rescuing crusader christians available?

"A senior Iranian cleric, Grand Ayatollah Nasser Makarem Shirazi, dismissed the Nazi Holocaust of Jews during World War II as a new "superstition" for the West, media reported on Saturday. "
http://www.breitb...rticle=1
Why the left tolerates Muslims: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Most Jews are leftists, I wouldn't call Muslims their friends.

Most Jews are leftists, I wouldn't call Muslims their friends.

Many American Jews don't like Israel either.

"A senior Iranian cleric, Grand Ayatollah Nasser Makarem Shirazi, dismissed the Nazi Holocaust of Jews during World War II as a new "superstition" for the West, media reported on Saturday. "
http://www.breitb...rticle=1
Why the left tolerates Muslims: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

He doesn't count because he's not Saudi.

"both consciously and unconsciously"?? I think you mean subconsciously no?

@MW: More lameness:

"There's something beyond plain old ignorance that motivates Americans" Let's bash all Americans.

"smear campaigns" Why is it a smear to call someone a Muslim?

"people are most likely to accept such falsehoods" Is it really so false? What truth detector is being employed? Only Obama can know in his heart where his allegiance lies.

"These judgments, Kosloff argues, are illogical" When are judgments ever logical?

"Perpetuate the lies" We so know the truth, do we?

"media outlets are largely responsible for the propagation of these falsehoods" Or truthhoods. What is the basis for this determination?

"social differences can motivate acceptance of these lies." Let’s repeat the word "lies" that makes it true, I guess.

"though he's a practicing Christian" Is this the proof? The meme is that he is a cryptomuslim. So why not "practice" Christianity?

"motivate Americans to believe the lies" Repeat that word and it must be true.

Why is it a "smear campaign" to call someone a Muslim?

You - willfully, I assume - omit to mention the geographical location and its political prejudices.

Why is it a smear campaign to call you an American in ... ?

So, if a group of folks in Afghanistan thinks he might be a Muslim, they are only acknowledging a non-zero probability, yet a similar group of folks, living in America, equally fond of statistics, would be involved in a smear campaign. Got it. Thanks.

Somebody get me a cheeseburger.

"though he's a practicing Christian" Is this the proof? The meme is that he is a cryptomuslim. So why not "practice" Christianity?
"motivate Americans to believe the lies" Repeat that word and it must be true.

I see what you did there. Clever. Except the same thing could be said about Bush being a secret Illuminati or the Flying Spaghetti Monster being real. All are non-zero probability, but yet I think we can all agree that it doesn't make them worthy of so much attention and national debate just because they "might" be true.

If someone claims that Obama is a Muslim, I'd like to see their proof. If they have non, it is here-say and nothing more.

What a waste of our time when there are so many other pressing issues. Obama has done plenty of things to be upset about that you can PROVE. Why do people need to get caught up on meaningless and irrelevant speculation? Sounds like delusion of conspiracy without evidence is a growing problem in our country.

Unfortunate.