A tweet about Islam from Hillary Clinton

This is what we’re hearing from American politicians:

Note first the conflation between Muslims and Islam, which is the conflation between “criticizing religion” and “being a bigot against its adherents”.

But the claim to investigate is the characterization of “peaceful and tolerant” adherents. Here are data from the 2013 Pew Survey:

Screen Shot 2016-06-13 at 2.22.23 PM Screen Shot 2016-06-13 at 2.23.19 PM Screen Shot 2016-06-13 at 2.24.16 PM

Screen Shot 2016-06-13 at 2.27.13 PM

Screen Shot 2016-06-13 at 2.33.03 PM

Screen Shot 2016-06-13 at 2.35.30 PM

Screen Shot 2016-06-13 at 3.09.33 PM

Screen Shot 2016-06-13 at 3.29.34 PMScreen Shot 2016-06-13 at 2.35.12 PM Screen Shot 2016-06-13 at 2.33.24 PM

“Together, the surveys involved more than 38,000 face-to-face interviews in 80-plus languages and dialects, covering every country that has more than 10 million Muslims except for a handful (including China, India, Saudi Arabia and Syria) where political sensitivities or security concerns prevented opinion research among Muslims.” These also include Iran.

Screen Shot 2016-06-13 at 2.36.16 PM

Conclusion: “Peaceful”: perhaps. “Tolerant”: no. Perhaps Clinton should amend her statement to say “Islam in America” is peaceful and tolerant. Clearly, tolerance is not on the menu in much of the Muslim world.  And, as I said yesterday, the rest of the world really is important here, for that’s where the impetus for American Islamic terrorism comes from. It is ISIS recruiters, it’s the imams preaching in the Middle East, who inspire both immigrants to America, as well as citizens with Muslim ancestry, to commit acts of terrorism. You can’t ignore the views of Muslims worldwide when considering the behavior of American Islamists.

I’d amend Clinton’s statement to say “Virtually all religions are adversaries of rationality, democracy, and Enlightenment values.”

Finally, it behooves us to note that when a CNN reporter held her feet to the fire yesterday, Clinton conceded, in a somewhat mealymouthed way:

I have clearly said  that we  face terrorist enemies who use Islam to justify slaughtering innocent people, and you know, whether you call it radical jihadism or radical Islamism, I think they mean the same thing; I’m happy to say either.

She then clarifies a bit by saying that she won’t demonize a whole religion.

Listen to the full clip here.



  1. CJ
    Posted June 14, 2016 at 8:58 am | Permalink

  2. Dick Veldkamp
    Posted June 14, 2016 at 9:01 am | Permalink

    If I am not mistaken the graph “Death penalty for leaving Islam” occurs twice.

    • Posted June 14, 2016 at 9:38 am | Permalink

      I’ll check and fix that if it’s the case, thanks.

    • Kevin
      Posted June 14, 2016 at 10:08 am | Permalink

      Something tells me that some fundamentalist (of any religion) would love the opportunity to render execution more than once, alas they only get one occasion.

  3. Taz
    Posted June 14, 2016 at 9:02 am | Permalink

    Muslims are peaceful and tolerant people.

    Compared to whom? It’s an absurd generalization to make about any large group of people.

    • Posted June 14, 2016 at 9:05 am | Permalink

      I have known some who are, and the warmth shown within their families, equally to the women and men, boys and girls, was beautiful.

    • p. puk
      Posted June 14, 2016 at 10:38 am | Permalink

      Compared to the KKK they are just as tolerant and just as peace loving. Compared to Nazis (sorry Godwin!) they are also similarly peace loving and tolerant.

      Muslims (what, 85% or more of them?) want to destroy Israel and drive the Jews into the sea. How many Muslims would actually say it’s a bad thing if every last Jew on the planet were murdered?

      Muslim society as a whole is genocidal and even though few of them would actually participate in slaughter, the same is true of the KKK and Nazis.

      Can we please classify Islam as a hate group already?

      • Cindy
        Posted June 14, 2016 at 10:42 am | Permalink

        Muslims (what, 85% or more of them?) want to destroy Israel and drive the Jews into the sea. How many Muslims would actually say it’s a bad thing if every last Jew on the planet were murdered?

        If Israel were to become an Islamic theocracy tomorrow, I can only assume that LGBTQ people would have just as many freedoms right, right?

        I mean, regressives keep saying ‘but whatabout the evil stuff in the Old Testament??’ in order to deflect from the homophobia that is inherent in Islam.

        • Posted June 14, 2016 at 11:10 am | Permalink

          Israel’s president and prime minister, speaking on behalf of all Israelis, responded to the Orlando attack with support for the LGBTQ community. Tel Aviv has a Gay Pride Parade every year. Israel’s aliyah outreach has a specific series reaching out to the LGBTQ community, to make sure they understand that they, too, are equally welcome. Nowhere else in the entire Middle East or south Asia, as far as I know, are Muslim homosexuals so safe and so welcome.

          Let the Muslims take over Israel, and that Israeli scenario will come to a sudden, dead end.

  4. Posted June 14, 2016 at 9:03 am | Permalink

    Saying, “Muslims have nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.”

    Is patent nonsense.

    About all those killers shouting, “Allah U Akbar!” Not Muslims you say? Sorry!

    • Cindy
      Posted June 14, 2016 at 10:09 am | Permalink

      Of course they don’t! And if they do, well, toxic masculinity (invented by white cishet western men) is to blame! It’s the same reason they raped at Cologne – they saw bands of German men raping women without penalty, so they jumped on the bandwagon!


      Maajid Nawaz:

      It’s what I call the racism of low expectations: to lower those standards when looking at a brown person if a brown person happens to express a level of misogyny, chauvinism, bigotry, or anti-Semitism, and yet hold other white people to universal liberal standards. The real victim of that double standard are the minority communities themselves because by doing so we limit their horizons; we limit their own ceiling and expectations as to what they aspire to be; we’re judging them as somehow that their culture is inherently less civilized; and, of course, we are tolerating bigotry within communities, and the first victims of that bigotry happen to be those who are weakest from among those communities.


  5. Posted June 14, 2016 at 9:04 am | Permalink

    Two points:
    1. We desperately need that same sort of poll data taken in the USA and Canada. Otherwise, Americans can point out that the results represent “other” and not “our” Muslims.
    2. Speaking of “other”, I think Hillary is continuing an effort by Obama to carve the American population in two: those considered “real Muslims” and therefore “real Americans” versus terrorists who should be turned in to authorities by those “real Muslim Americans.”

    • Posted June 14, 2016 at 9:07 am | Permalink

      Correction: …carve the Muslim population of American (and, perhaps, by extension Canada) in two…

      • Posted June 14, 2016 at 9:10 am | Permalink

        And, please forgive the type: America, not American, inside the darned correction, for pete’s sake!

    • GodlessMarkets
      Posted June 14, 2016 at 9:27 am | Permalink

      Two related points:

      1. The online version of Reason Magazine has the results of another Pew pole that shows American Muslims are more tolerant of gay marriage than evangelical Christians. (40 % of American Muslims support; 29 % of ECs).

      2. I was surprised by this but I think it bolsters the general point that religion is often antithetical to fundamental political rights. This is especially true if one looks at support for gay marriage among atheists and agnostics; much higher than any other group.

      • Posted June 14, 2016 at 9:39 am | Permalink

        Good points! Also, another avenue from which to create the us (Americans, including Muslim Americans) and them (Islamist terrorists who murder gays in the name of Allah).

      • Cindy
        Posted June 14, 2016 at 10:18 am | Permalink

        I would say that American Muslims who *choose* America do so because they want to live in a free society.

        That makes all of the difference in the world.

        The same cannot be said for the millions of migrants who are fleeing war at the moment.

        • Posted June 20, 2016 at 4:33 pm | Permalink

          America is not only free but also prosperous (compared with many other countries, particularly Muslim ones). You cannot be sure what motivates an immigrant more, the wish to live in freedom or the wish to live in prosperity. Some may wish the prosperity but frown at the freedom, as do many immigrants to Western Europe.

      • rickflick
        Posted June 14, 2016 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

        Here’s the Reason Magazine article with the Pew Pole results:


        • Posted June 14, 2016 at 12:45 pm | Permalink

          Thank you for finding and posting that.

    • Posted June 14, 2016 at 9:40 am | Permalink

      Agreed. There are polls from England showing that British Muslims are far more radical than one would expect, but my guess is that American Muslims would be less radical. However, remember that much of the impetus for terrorism in the U.S, as I said yesterday, comes from the countries mentioned above: those in the Middle East. I’ve added a note to that effect in the post above.

      • Posted June 14, 2016 at 10:01 am | Permalink

        This matters, in the “us vs. them” scenario that I think Hillary and Obama are trying to paint and in the Trump line about closing borders. Either way, it would be a distraction for nonMuslim Americans to focus on, while Saudi-funded schools raise up American-born Muslims into the very extremist mentality that leads to violence. A good poll every 5 years, making sure to include parents and students of those schools, could add real insight.

      • p. puk
        Posted June 14, 2016 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

        Don’t forget that Muslim immigrants to the US are far more civilized (if I may) than their EU brethren.

        It takes considerably more effort to get into the US and those who manage are generally much better off and more educated than the average EU immigrant.

        Needless to say, there will always remain an undercurrent of mistrust and a large superiority complex which festers among the population until individuals or small groups get together for a bit of the ol’ Allahu Akbar.

        Sure, many cultures suffer from chronic jingoism but Muslim jingoism seems unique in how often it terminates in mass murder.

    • gary
      Posted June 14, 2016 at 10:00 am | Permalink

      Regarding your point #1, it’s long and dated but worth a look,

    • Jeremy Tarone
      Posted June 14, 2016 at 10:50 am | Permalink

      American and Canadian immigrant Muslims were allowed to enter (selected) based on interviews that show their ideas and opinions are far more likely to be in line with Western ideals of freedom of religion, speech, equality and all that good stuff.

      The extremists and Islamists were winnowed out (for the most part). The parents were likely to teach their children their own more moderate views, along with social pressure from greater Western society.

      So Canadian and American poll results should be quite different. Even so we are seeing some Western Muslims in North America being seduced by extremism, and they aren’t Buddhists. That should tell Clinton something.

      But I would think Hillary already knows all this. She isn’t stupid. So is the choice for political points, or does she not want to insult the majority of Muslims? Or some other reason?

    • eric
      Posted June 15, 2016 at 6:34 am | Permalink

      We have just under 3 million Muslims in the US, going by the latest PEW survey and population statistics. That’s tiny compared to the global population. At best what it tells us is that Islam can be peacefully interpreted and exist in harmony with western liberal democratic values. Not just in theory, but in reality – this harmonization can happen in practice and we know that to be true because it does happen.

      I think that point is worth making because some people would debate even that. However, it is still pretty weak tea if you’re arguing that statistical surveys of the US could provide some sort of counterargument to Jerry’s statistics above; they won’t. The numbers just aren’t comparable. It would be like arguing that Christianity is pacifistic because Quakers represent it. No, they don’t. They demonstrate by example that a pacifistic interpretation of Christianity can be socially viable and stable over centuries, but in no way are they representative of the whole religion right now.

      • Posted June 15, 2016 at 9:39 am | Permalink

        It appears you’ve misinterpreted my intent. My primary intent was to gain real knowledge, rather than project expectations where there were no comparable data points.

        My secondary intent had to do with judging CAIR as primary spokes-organization for all American Muslims. According to Howard Bloom, CAIR has been recognized by a Muslim country as being associated with the Muslim Brotherhood. What bothers me is that an American organization purporting to protect religious freedom associates with both CAIR and Reza Aslan. If only they could replace Aslan with an American version of Maagid Nawaz (but they refuse Ayaan Hirsi Ali) and CAIR with… I don’t even know, yet.

        No matter, though. They won’t listen to me, anyway. It’s why I’m no longer associated with that organization.

  6. GBJames
    Posted June 14, 2016 at 9:30 am | Permalink

    For a moment there yesterday I thought Hillary was starting to get it…

    Clinton breaks from Obama, calls Orlando attack ‘radical Islamism’

    • Posted June 14, 2016 at 9:41 am | Permalink

      Look at the end of this post. That statement by Clinton is mentioned, and I gave a link.

  7. Posted June 14, 2016 at 9:34 am | Permalink


  8. Vaal
    Posted June 14, 2016 at 9:45 am | Permalink

    Even when we have people saying “this isn’t Islam, it’s homophobia” this event should become a talking point for the connection between religion, Islam especially, and homophobia. The connection between Islam and homophobia just has overwhelming evidence (of the type Jerry has posted), and this needs to be pressed.

    It looks like this is becoming something of a talking point in the media. Not enough yet, but it’s a beginning.

    • Posted June 14, 2016 at 9:58 am | Permalink

      It might even be self-homophobia. I just read that the killer was a regular at that very club for 3 years, drinking alcohol, losing his temper over talk of religion, and complaining his father was too strict. The temper thing fit his ex-wife’s complaint of anger eruptions, too. This has me wondering whether those eruptions of anger stemmed from being gay, denying nature, and forcing himself to behave heterosexually, with alcohol as “self-medication” for the stress induced by it all.

      • somer
        Posted June 14, 2016 at 10:06 am | Permalink

        The BBC had a clip of a British Muslim from Salafist background who eventually came out as gay. He says because his religion taught him he was utterly despicable for his orientation he completely loathed himself for being gay. He tried to be more and more religious to overcome it. His brand of Islam was steering him towards blaming this on gays, himself and on Western culture. He had actually seriously considered doing a terrorist attack against a western target but then the 7/7 (London metro) attack happened killing 52 people – he had an epiphany and basically dropped his Salafism for a way way milder (and modernised) form of Islam accepting being gay and came out.

        • Posted June 14, 2016 at 10:11 am | Permalink

          So maybe the FBI needs to monitor Muslims attending gay bars and showing anger management issues…. I’m being serious about this.

          • somer
            Posted June 14, 2016 at 10:19 am | Permalink

            In the ISIS operatives attack on home of a police inspector – killing him and his wife – the operative was a known active extremist who I think had been released from jail but security simply didn’t have resources to monitor him 24 hours a day – apparently that takes 20 undercover officers 24 hours a day!

            • somer
              Posted June 14, 2016 at 11:04 am | Permalink

              sorry, I didn’t clarify – this was the recent attack in France today
              and it was a police commander not an inspector
              French jihadist police killer ‘obeyed Islamic State order’
              the 20 officers figure I heard on BBC news radio so no reference!

      • Kevin
        Posted June 14, 2016 at 10:11 am | Permalink

        That is interesting. His previous actions and father’s statement do suggest a possible struggle within himself. Why can’t people like find better friends to help them sort out issues?

        • Posted June 14, 2016 at 10:15 am | Permalink

          Or at least a website with good community, like PCC(E)’s place, here.

        • Posted June 14, 2016 at 11:26 am | Permalink

          A partial reflection of our atomized society where social bonds are frayed and individualism (as opposed to systemism) is the official social ontology …

          • Posted June 14, 2016 at 11:31 am | Permalink

            Was really less than 100 years ago when families grew up next to relatives, and only one parent had to work to support the spouse and children at a middle class level?

            Shifting that worker’s pay up the corporate chain of command forced the homemaker into the workforce, paid her less than her husband, and forced the kids into daycare.

            Then, husbands were told they had pack up their wives and kids, and move away from the support of family and friends, to get a good paying job.

            And then, families started falling apart under the stress, until some had kids without bothering to create a family home first.

            Granted, this is an overgeneralization, but it does bear some validity worth pondering. CEOs, today, make how much more than their employees? And how does that compare to CEOs of even 100 years ago? It’s not like there weren’t any rich people, back then. They just weren’t quite so greedy as to kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

            • david mccrindle
              Posted June 14, 2016 at 3:56 pm | Permalink

              It is not just an over generalisation , it is wrong and misogynistic = ‘husbands packing up their wives and kids’ indeed. My mum went back to work when we reached school age because she wanted to, not because she was forced to. Many many others would have similar experiences. None of us have carried out massacres in gay bars, or anywhere else.

              100 years ago many many people had to leave their communities to find work, just as they do now.

              Corporate greed is bad, but not an excuse for random violence.

              • Posted June 14, 2016 at 11:08 pm | Permalink

                I was referencing the breakdown of multigenerational families and friends, support circles, as a general change in society.

            • eric
              Posted June 15, 2016 at 6:47 am | Permalink

              I think your argument is historically misguided. The Vanderbilts, Posts, Hearsts, Rockefellers, etc… were easily the equivalent of today’s hyperwealthy. Large income disparity was just as prevalent then as it is now. Federal income tax rates in the late 1800s and early 1900s maxed out at about 7%. They only increased to double digits after WWI or about 1917, and even then, you had to be making $2 million per year (remember, this is in 1917!) to be in the top 65% tax bracket. It was only the great depression and the federal policy response to that event that started reducing income disparities in the US to below levels we see today. WWII helped too, for a number of reasons.

              In short, in the US a low income disparity and strong middle class was more of a 40-50 year mid-20th-century exception to what has otherwise been a 200+ consistent pattern of ‘robber barons…and the rest of us.’

              • Posted June 15, 2016 at 9:43 am | Permalink

                Taxes: a special name for the governmental slice of one’s real working income.

                What, then, shall we call the corporation’s slice? Those corporate not-called-tax taxes add up. It’s how Mitt Romney takes in 200 million a year.

        • darrelle
          Posted June 14, 2016 at 12:34 pm | Permalink

          Agreed. But the religion / culture he grew up in would be against anyone in his position every step of the way. See Somer’s comment above about a British Muslim who was gay but managed to survive it. So far.

  9. DiscoveredJoys
    Posted June 14, 2016 at 10:04 am | Permalink

    In the Uk one news presenter (Owen Jones who happens to be gay) stormed out because he thought that other presenters were minimising the homophobia aspects of the killings.

    Whether he was right about the LGBT aspects being central rather than radical Islam being central has sparked great debate.

    Although in other news it appears that Omar Mateen was both a follower of Islam and gay himself. Go figure.

    • somer
      Posted June 14, 2016 at 10:08 am | Permalink

      In the clip they appear to deny it was an attack on homosexuals altogether – just a hate crime on people enjoying themselves. Jones (PC and usually annoys me) challenges them on this and they persist emphatically in denying it had to do with homophobia – only then did he walk out

      • Posted June 14, 2016 at 10:12 am | Permalink

        And only after he walked out did the other two talking heads give any nod to the homosexual hate crime perspective.

        • somer
          Posted June 14, 2016 at 11:19 am | Permalink

          Glad he forced them to come clean – they were pretty slimy about the whole thing

  10. Ken Kukec
    Posted June 14, 2016 at 10:05 am | Permalink

    House speaker Paul Ryan held a presser this morning in which he said that the vast majority of Muslims in the US and around the world “are peaceful and tolerant.”

    Clinton and Ryan are speaking as politicians, perhaps endeavoring to be statesmen, not as social scientists. Donald Trump, OTOH, has spoken on this incident as he always speaks, as a demagogue.

    • somer
      Posted June 14, 2016 at 10:13 am | Permalink

      I wonder whether politicians at top national level have to use fairly bland language on such internationally sensitive topics for geopolitical reasons, especially after an internationally sensitive event. But in some fora they have to be honest – and its very problematic if they are all like that all or most of the time.

      The people have to keep the true nature of things in the forefront, hold politicians to account and counter PC arguments and the right – including in the media and academia

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted June 14, 2016 at 10:54 am | Permalink

        It is crucial that politicians think clearly and honestly on matters of public policy. And there are times when they must speak hard truths to their constituents on such matters.

        But, as an old-time politico once confided to me — a former officeholder whom I voted for several times and would gladly vote for again — it is impossible for a politician to do the public any good while telling it nothing but the unvarnished truth. Politics is, after all, the art of the possible.

        The best we can hope for from politicians is that they will pick their spots wisely. The ability to do so is one of the hallmarks that distinguishes the statesman.

      • Stephen
        Posted June 14, 2016 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

        I’m not defending their obfuscations but I think Obama and Hillary’s overriding concern to prevent a wave of anti-Muslim hysteria in this country. It wouldn’t take much to it off.

  11. Randall Schenck
    Posted June 14, 2016 at 10:11 am | Permalink

    The problem with politicians in general is that they can never stop being politicians. Many people do get tired of that. It is possible to criticize a fact within a religion without condemning the entire religion, but again, the politician has got to be the politician and that keeps them from speaking in direct terms and speaking the truth. It makes them appear either dishonest, ignorant of the facts or both. Hilary Clinton is first and always a politician and it is too bad that an idiot such as Trump gets to use that to his benefit.

    The fact, so far in this debate is that Trump has not said one thing about the terrorism that would reduce any of it. In fact, following the gun loving party he claims to belong to, he would be providing them with more guns and more ammunition.

  12. Peter
    Posted June 14, 2016 at 10:12 am | Permalink

    I agree that Islam, in countries where Muslims are the majority of the population, cannot correctly be described as tolerant – the opinion poll evidence is what it is (unless one has some sound criticism of the the polls’ methodology). And even a large share of Muslim immigrants in the West may not be tolerant in their opinions but simply be constrained from acting out their intolerance.

    It seems to me that there is one minor false note in what PCC wrote:
    “Note first the conflation between Muslims and Islam, which is the conflation between ‘criticizing religion’ and ‘being a bigot against its adherents’.”

    Since Muslims are followers of Islam I don’t see any conflation. When you criticize Islam you criticize Muslims. Of course, the idea that you criticize them because you hate them or because you are a racist is nonsense – we criticize Muslims (or Christians or religious Jews) because their beliefs are unjustified by the evidence that is accessible to all of us. The fact that we use the same arguments against adherents of different religions (who may in turn belong to different ethnic groups) shows that the racism charge is false.

    Defenders of religion call us bigots or racist because they don’t have any better responses or because they are really ignorant or because they don’t care about those groups who are oppressed by religion (principally women, sexual minorities, religious minorities).

    • Posted June 14, 2016 at 10:16 am | Permalink

      You criticize bad ideas and you can criticize people who hold those bad ideas; agreed. But that doesn’t mean that you deport those who hold those bad ideas, or discriminate against them. Criticism of the ludicrous beliefs of many Jews, for example, is fair game, as well as to criticize those ideas in an argument with those adherents. But that’s not a justification for anti-semitism.

      The conflation is to reject or demonize an entire individual who holds certain bad ideas, rather than criticize that part of the individual who holds those ideas. One of my best friends, for example, was long a believer in God, and I argued strenuously with him about that (he’s now a nonbeliever🙂 ), but I still liked him very much because in all other ways he was rational, as well as being a terrific person.

  13. Posted June 14, 2016 at 10:56 am | Permalink

    Muslims in America may be tolerant, but being intolerant when you’re a small minority (unless your a small minority with all the weapons) is suicidal.

    • Kevin
      Posted June 14, 2016 at 1:02 pm | Permalink

      It is unhealthy, maybe not literally suicidal.

      This is true, however, for all minority cultures in America. When a family comes form China, Poland, India, Hungary, Iran, etc., and tries to maintain the same cultural, ideological upbringing in America, it inevitably leads to tension, if not fundamental problems of cohesion especially in teenage years.

      Not eating the right foods or not dating the right girls or not eating food during the day and trying to be an athlete, e.g., Ramadan.

      Tolerance is just part of the story. If one wants to really adapt there needs to be some flexibility in allowing children to be ‘more American’. I am not saying America is good or better, but being an outlier in America brings an unnecessary ingredient of adversity, especially for young people.

      • somer
        Posted June 15, 2016 at 5:59 am | Permalink

        I think anything that doesnt unduly impinge on other people or call for living separately from the broader community as an ongoing norm after initial period of adapation – from generation to generation – is bad but think its human and also an intrinsic feature of society for people to be attached to the ways of living they come from. Food differences is minor, and allow for some dress, customary and attitude differences. But where it conflicts with really basic norms of humane behaviour and good order (i.e. respect for laws, like insistence on separate marriage or other laws etc) thats not fine and should be discouraged or acted on depending on what it is. These things take a while to change.

    • Posted June 20, 2016 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

      + 1

  14. revelator60
    Posted June 14, 2016 at 11:37 am | Permalink

    Here’s an article on Mateen’s homosexuality:

    If this is true, and it seems to be, than the murders become even more tragic by resulting from self-loathing and internalized homophobia almost certainly encouraged by religion.

    As for Clinton, whatever her tweet says, she’s pretty hawkish in her policies and mindset, so the bigger issue is whether she’ll be too vigorous in pursuing terrorists in the Middle East.

    • Posted June 14, 2016 at 11:53 am | Permalink

      Please, forgive me if this sounds diabolical, but what if Mateen’s homosexuality, and ISIS claim of support after the fact, could be used in propaganda to suggest ISIS is predominantly homosexual and let that explain why it treats women so cruelly? Might that not inhibit some impressionable young men and women of Muslim culture from joining it?

      • Ken Kukec
        Posted June 14, 2016 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

        It’s too diabolical by half, doc.

        We will win more hearts & minds in the long run by demonstrating the advantages of living in an open, pluralistic society where individuals are free to be true to themselves — where, so long as they do no harm to others, citizens are free to pursue their own form of happiness, each as he or she sees fit.

        • Posted June 14, 2016 at 10:58 pm | Permalink

          I hope you’re right, Ken. I hope the propaganda used by ISIS to recruit impressionable young adults isn’t as compelling as the truth that you state so well.

  15. ploubere
    Posted June 14, 2016 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

    I think the reason both Obama and Clinton continually skirt the Islam issue is simple international diplomacy. We do have to cultivate diplomatic relations with most of those countries, and we make it extremely difficult for their leaders to do so if our president states anything resembling criticism of Islam.

    Diplomacy is all about polite lies, but it is necessary to promote peace.

    • Posted June 20, 2016 at 4:50 pm | Permalink

      I think that if the US president and other Western leaders criticize Islam on a regular basis, the leaders of Muslim countries will eventually come to terms with it, because they also need diplomatic relationships with the West. Our appeasement so far does not seem to bring much good, and is not reciprocated.

      Also, I think honesty requires a message to be sent to potential Muslim immigrants that the majority of Americans (or whatever Western country we are talking about) does not like Islam and does not want more of it.

  16. Historian
    Posted June 14, 2016 at 12:53 pm | Permalink

    Let us not forget that at least some of right-wing fundamentalism supports death to gays as well. View this video with caution and be ready to puke.


    • Victoria
      Posted June 14, 2016 at 1:22 pm | Permalink

      No one has forgotten that. Literally no one.

      Repeatedly ‘reminding’ us of the existence of violent Christian extremism is simply carrying water for Islam in my view. Do you even hear yourself when you use the term “right-wing” as a synonym for white, Christian Westerner?

      I know that’s a harsh assessment, but I’m just sick of it. It helps me understand why people might vote for Trump, even though I’m a liberal, because I feel down right angry when I see posts like yours.

      Worse I think there is an element of racism, namely Muslims are continuously allowed by many Western liberals to exhibit normative trends that approach the outlier extremes of Christianity, yet the two religions are held as somehow ‘equally’ worthy of discussion.

      • Historian
        Posted June 14, 2016 at 1:54 pm | Permalink

        Your response is bizarre. First, the minister in the video is Latino. This shows that it is the perniciousness of religion in general, not the ethnic identity of its practitioners, that is the source of so much hate in the world. Second, The existence of Christian haters is not to let off the hook Muslim haters. A particular Muslim did the killing, but this minister, in effect, views him as a hero. Third, I have no idea how you think “right-wing” is a a synonym for white, Christian westerner. Right-wing, in this context, means a person of extremely conservative Christian views. Most Christians do not fall into this category, otherwise, for example, the majority of Americans would not support same-sex marriage.

        Let us know when you vote for Trump.

        • Cindy
          Posted June 14, 2016 at 2:05 pm | Permalink

          Let us know when you vote for Trump.

          Nice ad hom.

          So, those of us here who crticise bad Islamic ideas without also criticizing the bad ideas of every other religion are all secretly vile,bigoted Trump supporters?

          I suppose that if a Christian was to murder someone, we would then be obligated to list every other religion that has bad ideas in order to protect the feelz of moderate Christians? Right?

          I cannot criticize the Planned Parenthood shooter without also mentioning Islamic misogyny otherwise I am being unfair to Christians?

      • Posted June 20, 2016 at 4:51 pm | Permalink

        + 1

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted June 14, 2016 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

      That’s certainly true. But what I find more extraordinary, and more heartening, are the numerous statements by rightwing public figures — many of whom were still railing against same-sex marriage just a year ago — expressing sympathy for and solidarity with the gay and lesbian community over the tragedy in Orlando. There has been a mainstreaming of LGBT acceptance in the US that was unforeseeable only a decade back.

      We can complain all we want about “political correctness,” and I often do, but it is the reason why snide comments and aspersions aren’t being heard in the channels of respectable public discourse now. There’s no defending its excesses, but in its genesis political correctness is simply politeness and a due regard for the sensibilities of one’s fellow citizens.

    • ploubere
      Posted June 14, 2016 at 9:53 pm | Permalink

      I’m baffled as to why Victoria and Cindy are attacking you. I had seen this video earlier, and it is odious. It certainly seems relevant to this discussion in pointing out how much extremist muslims and christians have in common.

      • Victoria
        Posted June 14, 2016 at 10:35 pm | Permalink

        “pointing out how much extremist muslims and christians have in common”

        This is the same tired false equivalency.

        “Extremist” Islam is often the normative interpretation of the faith and the official position of government in some countries.

        Most conservative Christians are liberal by comparison. Those extreme outlier reactionaries among Christians, like the guy in the video, are so unrepresentative, that to mention them as more than a curiosity is irrational.

        The closest the Christian world has come in centuries to Islam’s death penalty stances for apostatsy, blasphemy, and same-sex relationships is Uganda, which backed down from its plans.

        • somer
          Posted June 15, 2016 at 10:26 am | Permalink

          On most things even extremist Western Christians are considerably more humanistically inclined than Islamic counterparts (in modern times). Whereas absolute hatred of gays – at least in a homosexual relationship – by all appearances is orthodox in Islam, there are many Christian churches now that are not fringe and which happily accept it.
          However there are plenty of fundamentalist Western Christians around- not just high profile ones – who despise gays and although they respect and obey their country’s laws would much rather homosexuality were still criminalised and do not object at all to the plight of gays in Africa (e.g. Uganda, though that law has been repealed – deadly violence against gays is rife)

    • Ken Kukec
      Posted June 15, 2016 at 10:43 am | Permalink

      Shall we start the countdown until the righteous man of the cloth in the video gets pinched on the down low, expending funds from the collection plate on the services of a male escort? 5…4…

  17. Nilou Ataie
    Posted June 14, 2016 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

    It is the problem of critical thinking – many have no idea how to do it.

  18. Posted June 14, 2016 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

    That tweet is a perfect example of the type of political correct rhetoric that can drive otherwise reasonable people who are particularly fearful of terrorism into the hands of Trump.

    • Thanny
      Posted June 14, 2016 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

      That’s pretty much what I was about to say.

      It’s already handed a lot of influence to the far right in Europe.

      It’s hard to think of any one thing Clinton could say that would do more to increase the chance of President Trump.

  19. zytigon
    Posted June 14, 2016 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

    I would like to know how the Pew survey managed to guarantee to the people taking part in the survey that it was 100% anonymous. I suspect if the people being interviewed didn’t trust that there was no way anyone would find out their specific beliefs then they would answer according to what they thought was expected of them, in case they got a call from the death squads.
    I once took part in political canvassing and I discovered that the organisers either remembered or took notes about what way the residents said they would vote. They didn’t bother going back to a house if they got an emphatic answer – only to those who seemed undecided.

%d bloggers like this: