Arab-Americans…American Muslims…Hey, they’re all pretty much the same, right?
April 21st, 2008 at 03:16pm Pat Cunningham
I heard a conversation on the radio the other day in which a caller not only repeated the thoroughly debunked claim that Barack Obama “is a Muslim,” but also opined — I’m paraphrasing here because I couldn’t take notes while driving — that Arabs and Muslims in this country hate America.
This fellow made reference to a poll he saw some months back showing that “American Arabs,” as he called them, think it’s all right to commit acts of violence in support of Islam.
For starters, this guy seems not to know that three-fourths of Arab-Americans are Christians, not Muslims. He probably also doesn’t know that the vast majority of the world’s Muslims are not Arabs.
The poll to which he referred was a Pew Research Center survey last year of attitudes among American Muslims, the results of which caused undue alarm in some quarters.
For example, a letter to the editor of the Rockford Register Star last June (no longer available online) said this:
“Twenty-five percent or more of the Muslim people in the United States believe it is acceptable to act as a suicide bomber, taking tens, or even hundreds, of innocent lives in the process.”
Actually, the Pew poll showed that 13 percent of American Muslims, not 25 percent or higher, said there can be, in some cases, justification for suicide bombings “to defend Islam.” On the other hand, 78 percent of respondents said such actions could “never” be justified.
One wonders how many Americans could find justification for violence against innocent civilians in defense of Christianity. I know of no such poll that poses that question directly, but I’ve seen survey results on questions that aren’t too dissimilar.
To wit, an earlier Pew poll asked Americans in general if they think “the use of torture against suspected terrorists” can be justified. Forty-six percent of respondents said such treatment would be acceptable “often” or “sometimes.” Another 17 percent would approve of it “rarely,” but only 32 percent said “never.”
Self-described “white evangelicals” were more inclined than other respondents to approve of the torture. And notice, please, that we’re talking about torture of suspected terrorists, not necessarily certifiable bad guys.
Nor should we think of Christian Americans as mostly averse to killing innocent civilians in furtherance of our national interests. To this day, a majority of our citizens support the decision of 63 years ago to drop nuclear bombs on Japanese cities that were of no strategic military importance, killing tens of thousands of civilians. Rightly or wrongly, such bombings were acts of terrorism intended to force Japan into surrender. They were successful in that regard.
Much also has been made of the recent poll finding that 47 percent of American Muslims think of themselves as Muslim first and then American. How unpatriotic of them, right? Well, 42 percent of American Christians consider themselves Christian first and then American. So, on that score, our Christians and Muslims are pretty much the same.
None of my argument here is to suggest that there aren’t American Muslims who might do this nation and its people harm in certain circumstances or that we shouldn’t take reasonable precautions against such misdeeds. My point is that the vast majority of our Muslims are mainstream Americans except, perhaps, for cultural differences.
Let’s remember, too, that there are Christian terrorists among us. Does the name Timothy McVeigh ring a bell? Have you heard about the murders of abortion providers? Are you old enough to recall the lynchings of African-Americans and civil rights activists by God-fearing, church-going Southerners not so long ago?
Just asking.
Entry Filed under: American Muslims, Arab-Americans
10 Comments Add your own
1. Menlo Bob | April 21st, 2008 at 3:53 pm
My my, you do seem very inclined to attribute negative characteristics to white Christians that you refuse to consider for nearly any American Muslim. I imagine that this is representative of your vaunted tolerance. Wonder what the documented religious practices of Timothy McVeigh were? And I’d imagine that his activities were endorsed by the church authorities and holy scriptures. And that he has a sizable following…say in the 13% range.
2. Pat Cunningham | April 21st, 2008 at 4:29 pm
What you’re saying here, Bob, doesn’t make much sense. The part about McVeigh is confusing (”endorsed by the church authorities and holy scriptures…”? What does that mean?) And where in the hell did you get the idea that I’m “inclined to attribute negative characteristics to white Christians that (I) refuse to consider for nearly any American Muslim”? Show me what I wrote that supports your allegation. Notice, please, this passage from I wrote: “None of my argument here is to suggest that there aren’t American Muslims who might do this nation and its people harm in certain circumstances or that we shouldn’t take reasonable precautions against such misdeeds.” You must have missed that part, eh, Bob? And are you denying that abortion providers haven’t been murdered by Christian fanatics? Are you denying that Southern Christians weren’t involved in countless lynchings? Are you denying that most American Christians, rightly or wrongy, support in retrospect the killing of civilians in the nuclear attacks on Japan? I will concede one point to you. I find that Timothy McVeigh once said in an interview that he had been raised a Catholic but drifted away from the church when he was in the military. When he was awaiting trial, he said he believed in God but declined to discuss in detail his religious leanings. So, I was wrong to suggest that he had any strong religious beliefs, Christian or otherwise.
3. Kaus | April 21st, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Me thinks Pat knows nothing about risk mitigation and would lose his shirt in Vegas playing any card games. Based on how many Islamo terrorists you have in the deck……
You know they created RICO laws to eliminate organized crime amongst our Sicilian friends long ago….I see nothing wrong with outwitting and vetting terrorist organizations. In fact, if the Feds want to come to my Church and vet it properly, I say come on in Brothers and Sisters.
4. Mike Carroll | April 21st, 2008 at 6:55 pm
“To this day, a majority of our citizens support the decision of 63 years ago to drop nuclear bombs on Japanese cities that were of no strategic military importance, killing tens of thousands of civilians.” and the remainder are absolute morons who have no clue when it comes to the history of that time. Please tell me Pat that you are not one of those Stanley Campbell revisionists.
5. Pat Cunningham | April 21st, 2008 at 8:05 pm
To be frank about it, Mike, I have mixed feelings about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. My point in this post is that lots of Americans rightly or wrongly don’t mind terrorism against civilians if they think it serves a worthy, patriotic purpose. Clearly, most Americans did feel that the bombings served that worthy purpose. My feelings, as I said, are profoundly mixed. My philosophical leanings are toward pacifism, but there are conditions in which I think violence can be justified. The issue regarding Japan is complicated by the fact that most of the victims were non-combatants. But I also recognize the arguments about saving American (and, yes, Japanese) lives. You’re free, of course, to argue in favor of the bombing, but don’t expect me to suddenly take your side. I’ve heard and read countless arguments on the matter, and I’m still conflicted.
6. Mike Carroll | April 22nd, 2008 at 6:47 am
Pat-I might argue that this was a circumstance where the violence was justified but I can respect, in this rare isolated instance, your stated opinion on the matter.
Good luck today BTW. I would much rather, for the sake of the country, see Obama as the nominee.
7. Pat Cunningham | April 22nd, 2008 at 8:10 am
Mike: You write: “I would much rather, for the sake of the country, see Obama as the nominee.” Does this mean that you think Obama would be a weaker candidate against McCain? Or do you mean he’d be a better president than Hillary? Frankly, I don’t see how Hillary can become president. If she gets the nomination despite Obama having won more states, popular votes and pledged delegates, the Democratic Party will fall apart and McCain will win in a walk. She also would energize the Republican base. For that reason and others, I figure McCain would much rather Hillary win the nomination. I don’t see how he could beat Obama in November.
8. Mike Carroll | April 22nd, 2008 at 8:35 am
Pat-I think Obama would be a better President than Clinton. I agree that he would be the stronger candidate so that is why I say for the good of the country. I do think Obama is beatable by McCain but there is a long way to go until November.
Besides, 4 to 8 more years of the Clinton’s could get me to move to Canada. And Pat, never ever underestimate the Dark Force of the Clintons. They will be gone whenever someone drives a wooden stake though their hearts.
9. Kaus | April 22nd, 2008 at 6:08 pm
Which group of terrorists to we group Bill Ayers into?
10. Pat Cunningham | April 22nd, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Stupid question,Kaus. The only people who care about the Bill Ayers issue are people who are going to find any excuse not to vote for Obama. Obama has nothing to do with the crimes committed by Bill Ayers and has denounced those crimes. End of story, except for people like you. You’d do better to worry about your Republican nominee, Mr. Straight Talk. When are you going to explain McCain’s coziness with the hate-monger John Hagee? When, Kaus, when? Or do you endorse Hagee’s hateful rhetoric?
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed