Islam News @ NYTWould you like your own blog hosted at Talk Islam? Email the admin at "salaam at talk islam dot info" !
Talk Islam uses Wordpress MU and the Prologue theme by Automattic
DISCLAIMER: Please see the About Talk Islam page for fair use issues and our privacy policy.
DONATE: Talk Islam needs your support!
Campbell Scott/CNN, “So what if Obama were a Muslim or Arab“:
I feel like I am stating the obvious here, but apparently it needs to be said: There is a difference between radical Muslims who support jihad against America and Muslims who want to practice their religion freely and have normal lives like anyone else.
razib 12:04 pm on October 14, 2008 Permalink |
i think the “so what” response is more plausible in particular elite contexts like the media. i don’t think it really matters if you’re talking about a mass democracy. mitt romney’s mormon religion was a major issue in the *primaries*, and self-identified mormons haven’t engaged in terrorist acts against the united states since the 19th century.
but there’s also another angle, and that’s that people feel comfortable with people like them. we’ve been a 25% protestant nation since the last 19th century only had one catholic president, and he was killed! people want fellowship with a eye toward preference with people like themselves, so it naturally leads to the fact that they will prefer someone like themselves, all things being equal. if 25% of america’s were muslim, “so what” would be a more powerful talking point since many more americans are muslim. as it is, very few are (the same issue crops up with mormonism).
of course, that’s not a apologia for bizarre conspiracy theorists. but as you imply, it’s not a black and white issue; you can prefer a co-religionist without assuming that other religionists are malevolent. a co-religionist is expected to know “what you’re about” with a greater degree of likelihood than a non-co-religionist. by analogy, “so what if he’s an atheist?” well, assume that being accused of being an atheist wasn’t a political poison pill, i think it is a plausible case that a politician who does not experience a living god in their life might be perceived to be “out of touch” with the values of the major who do believe in god. i think it’s not really factually correct, but a democracy is about the art of the possible.
razib 12:05 pm on October 14, 2008 Permalink |
we’ve been a 25% protestant nation
meant catholic.
willow 12:40 pm on October 14, 2008 Permalink |
I’d never thought about it before, but I think you’re right, Razib…even in a post 9/11 world, a Muslim probably has a better chance of becoming president than an atheist.
Now that is weird and telling.
razib 1:43 pm on October 14, 2008 Permalink |
willow, yep, it’s a robust finding:
Nearly four-in-ten (38 percent) say they would not vote for a well-qualified Muslim for president, and 17 percent would not vote for a well-qualified evangelical Christian. Fully 52 percent say they would not vote for a well-qualified atheist.
the only caution i would offer is that i think the “hostility” toward muslims is wider, but much shallower. that toward muslims is probably deeper, but somewhat narrower, at least avowed/consciously. now, if a bunch of atheists blow up the sears tower i hope i see my neighbors wearing darwin pins the next week in solidarity
cuz we’ll need it….
razib 1:44 pm on October 14, 2008 Permalink |
typing not my strong suit today. hostility toward atheists broader but shallower.