Iowa Caucus Focus Group Agrees: Obama is a Muslim

[Dante]

That's right, we can't read his mind. There's always a probability that a person could be a closet Muslim, agnostic, Christian, satanist, or what have you; but in most cases the probability is so small due to a lack of evidence that it's not worth discussing. Doing so would risk trying to prove a negative. But the claim that Obama could be a Muslim is worth discussing because there is evidence for it. As I said before, calling people on either side crazy only stifles the debate.

Perhaps the point of contention here is that, by my count at least, you haven't provided anything that I would consider evidence. Consider one of your points: that he had a Muslim father and stepfather (I'm just taking this as true here for the sake of argument; I don't actually know). This does not constitute evidence. It is true that, statistically speaking, people brought up in Islamic households are more likely to become Islamic themselves, but statistical averages do not constitute evidence in any particular case. The fact that I was raised in a country with a Christian majority does not constitute evidence that I am a Christian. Actual evidence must be something that is based on an actual action that he has taken, or words that he has spoken. This is why CS's evidence in support of his agnosticism, whether it's strong or weak, is categorically different from the support you are using: it constitutes direct evidence of his beliefs, rather than arguments which rely on statistics alone, disconnected from the person himself.

Similarly, his Muslim name was chosen, presumably, by his parents, certainly not by him. This would constitute evidence that one of his parents is Islamic, because it shows a choice they made, but it is not evidence in the case of Barack Obama himself. The school registration thing might constitute evidence (albeit very weak evidence), if it reflected a choice made by young Barack, but from my understanding it is more likely that his parents made this registration choice for him as part of the formalities of attending school in Indonesia.

Do you have anything at all that is based in a statement or action that Barack Obama himself has made?

[CapitalistSwine]

So it's okay to suggest that Obama could be a closet agnostic, but suggesting that Obama could be a closet Muslim is "bizarre" and "paranoid"?

Yes. See my mini-lecture. There is much more evidence suggesting he is either Christian OR agnostic (do not ignore my other comments in the thread) than he is Muslim. I also inferred through my wording that he is more likely to be Christian than agnostic. If you chose not to read my long post on the matter thats your problem not mine. You haven not made any sufficient counter-arguments to what I posted there, nor have I seen any anywhere. If you can provide some, then I welcome the debate, but until then I stand by my belief that his own actions supersede that dictated by his environment or his parents and that he more than likely has not gone through all of this extra effort to pretend he was Christian in an effort to conceal his true beliefs for the majority of his life.

Calling people on the other side irrational (not crazy, that's different), and proving that they are, doesn't stifle the debate. It shows the debate to be pointless.

My goal in this thread was never to debate you, it was to explain why you are irrational. None of the so called evidence you are citing is rational (the fact that he spent four years in Indonesia is not evidence of his religion, neither is having Muslim roommates, neither is having been abandoned by a Muslim father at birth). Citing an instance of him mis-speaking by accident as evidence is irrational. The technique of constantly asking loaded questions, to avoid clearly assuming a position in a debate, is irrational. Denying the possibility of actually knowing the answer to the question being debated is the height of irrationality.

This.

Edited March 1, 2011 by CapitalistSwine

[Corey1911]

Perhaps the point of contention here is that, by my count at least, you haven't provided anything that I would consider evidence. Consider one of your points: that he had a Muslim father and stepfather (I'm just taking this as true here for the sake of argument; I don't actually know). This does not constitute evidence. It is true that, statistically speaking, people brought up in Islamic households are more likely to become Islamic themselves, but statistical averages do not constitute evidence in any particular case. The fact that I was raised in a country with a Christian majority does not constitute evidence that I am a Christian. Actual evidence must be something that is based on an actual action that he has taken, or words that he has spoken.

I wouldn't hold your upbringing in a Christian country against you just as I wouldn't hold Obama's Muslim upbringing against him. But if you were to continue to praise Christianity as an adult (in the same manner that Obama has praised Islam) while simultaneously claiming to be an Objectivist (just as Obama simultaneously claims to be a Christian), then I would start to wonder. So I'm not just citing his upbringing as evidence, but his current behavior. I'll list some examples:

1. In an interview, Obama "recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it'll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as ''one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.""

The call to prayer, the adhan, includes the Shahada, which translated means, "There is no deity but Allah, and Muhammad is the Messenger of God." Now, according to Wikipedia, "A single honest recitation of the Shahadah in Arabic is all that is required for a person to become a Muslim."

2. Obama decided to have his first formal television interview after the election on an Arabic network to discuss American, Muslim relations.

3. Obama traveled to a Muslim country in order to tout Islamic achievements (Most of which were untrue, btw)

In that speech, he also said, " So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed." Would a devout Christian use that phrase? He could've just as easily said, "where it was founded", without offending the Muslim audience, but he chose to use the term, "revealed", as if he actually believes that the angel, Gabriel, revealed the Koran to Muhammad.

4. Obama ordered NASA to "reach out to the Muslim world."

If you chose not to read my long post on the matter thats your problem not mine.

Keep in mind that I try not to quote entire posts since doing so tends to bog down discussion forums. Because I did not quote your entire post, does not mean I didn't read it or ignored it.

Yes. See my mini-lecture. There is much more evidence suggesting he is either Christian OR agnostic (do not ignore my other comments in the thread) than he is Muslim. I also inferred through my wording that he is more likely to be Christian than agnostic.

True. But you still raised the possibility that he could be a closet agnostic. When I raise the possibility that he could be anything other than a Christian, I'm told that I should make a "solid claim", and try to prove definitively that he's a Muslim. There's clearly a double standard.

[CapitalistSwine]

You are offering up the same kind of evidence you were before man.

"There's clearly a double standard. "

There is no double standard. The types of evidence being provided are categorically different and it seems like you are having trouble differentiating these. (I don't want this to be interpreted as a hostile comment, it is not)

Edited March 2, 2011 by CapitalistSwine

[Corey1911]

He is most certainly closer to that of a social-democrat than a Marxist. As far as to what intensity his views are within that respect, that is something that could be debated all day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy

Given his life background, schooling, location, family and otherwise I believe he is either a Christian or, and I have been considering this to be more likely as time goes on, but I am not sure I am willing to commit to the idea...a closet agnostic.

One of quite a few reasons I believe this might be the case is that he has a good number of instances where he has been caught doing things of this nature (Ignore the idiot in the voiceover):

There is just far too many things I would have to ignore to come to the conclusion he is a closet Muslim. Even given the above video I think due to his background and what I have read on it, as well as his church attendance and many other factors he is still more likely to be a Christian than a Muslim. I believe the bowing to Islamic leaders is more due to the culture and location in which he grew up for some time.

You are offering up the same kind of evidence you were before man.

There is no double standard. The types of evidence being provided are categorically different and it seems like you are having trouble differentiating these. (I don't want this to be interpreted as a hostile comment, it is not)

And what evidence have you offered that suggests he could be a closet agnostic? The video you provided shows Obama criticizing the idea that the bible should guide government policy, and he quotes the bible saying extreme things like 'it's okay to stone your child'. Obama says nothing in the video that would suggest he's an agnostic. If anything, your video suggests that he is a secular Christian rather than a fundamentalist Christian.

You believe that he's most likely a Christian, but that there's a small possibility he could be an agnostic. Now, according to you and everyone else's logic (the same logic that's being applied to me), because Obama says he's a Christian, the only evidence that's acceptable is him confessing to being an agnostic or performing some kind of agnostic ritual. Demanding that you show evidence that definitively proves he's an agnostic would amount to a strawman attack since you are not claiming that Obama is definitely an agnostic, but are merely claiming that there's a possibility he could be an agnostic. Of course, when I explain this to everyone that I'm merely claiming there's a possibility he could be a Muslim, I'm basically accused of being an intellectual coward for refusing to "assume a position in the debate".

I'm truly puzzled by the differences between the way your claim has been treated and the way my claim has been treated. For some reason, suggesting that Obama could be a closet Muslim has a heavier burden of proof than suggesting he could be a closet agnostic. The only way I can explain this is that there seems to be an 'anti anti-Islam' bias on this thread.

[Grames]

a secular Christian

Is that like a Christian Objectivist or what???

Obama uses religion for social climbing, directly resulting in the lack of clarity around his affiliation. What he really believes in is his socialist politics and his religion is not even important.

[agrippa1]

According to his own accounts, Obama was roomed with Muslim foreign exchange students while attending Columbia. Is it normal procedure for foreign exchange programs to room foreign muslims with American Christians? It would seem to me that a more commonsense policy would be to try to avoid cultural and religious frictions by rooming muslim foreign students with other muslim foreign students. (Does anyone know what the typical policy is???)

The reason this is open to speculation is that Ubama's college records have never seen the light of day. Is it possible, given that he was formally adopted by an Indonesian muslim, that Ubama/Soetoro might have taken advantage of foreign student special deals to ease his enrollment and costs at Columbia, by enrolling as Barack Soetoro, muslim foreign exchange student from Indonesia? Only his college records could tell us. Why have they been blocked? Is his GPA really that poor? Is there anything in those records, given his brilliant academic performance since, that could possibly hurt him now?

Likewise, his birth certificate has never seen the light of day. What was released during the campaign was a modern computer printout of information in the Hawaii database, not a proper birth certificate. HI now says that the birth certificate does not exist, only a notation in the records. If Barak was adopted by Dr. Soetoro, is it standard policy to update the original birth certificate with the legally changed name of the person it was issued against? Is it possible that Obama's birth cert does exist, but is filed under "S" for Soetoro?

For those of us who scoff at the conspiracy theories, keep in mind that the failure of Obama to release documents relating to his birth and education (and indeed an active and expensive fight to keep them from being released) creates fertile ground for any theory that fills the vacuum.

The point is not that Obama might be a muslim. The argument that he "claims" to be a Christian ignores the fact that membership in Jeremiah Wright's church established street cred on two fronts, both to dissuade speculation based on his "funny name" and to associate himself with an extremist black liberation theologist, in liberal/radical Chicago. Obama is, if nothing else, an opportunist. His campaign for state senate revealed the cold manipulative nature of his ambition. His habit of using people and then tossing them underbus is well documented. The idea that he might have asserted a (valid) status of foreign muslim to his advantage is certainly within the nature of the man we know.

So the point is not that Obama is a muslim or a Christian. I don't think he is a thinking, acting Christian, or a muslim. I don't think he considers Christianity any more valid than islam, which is to say, not. He is on record demeaning Christians and Christianity, but not islam or muslims, and has actually said that the muslim call to prayer is one of the prettiest sounds on earth. The point is that he is the President of the United States and we don't really know the first thing about him. And he likes it that way. As he himself said, he is the blank screen upon which everyone projects their own ideology, which is a pretty good cover for whatever he really is.

[SapereAude]

This is a good point Agrippa:

"So the point is not that Obama is a muslim or a Christian. I don't think he is a thinking, acting Christian, or a muslim. I don't think he considers Christianity any more valid than islam, which is to say, not. He is on record demeaning Christians and Christianity, but not islam or muslims, and has actually said that the muslim call to prayer is one of the prettiest sounds on earth. The point is that he is the President of the United States and we don't really know the first thing about him. And he likes it that way. As he himself said, he is the blank screen upon which everyone projects their own ideology, which is a pretty good cover for whatever he really is"

For the record I don't believe Obama is Muslim but I also don't agree that Corey's questioning is "irrational" as so many are claiming here.

What we do know is that Obama is a narcissistic, opportunistic liar.

Someone in an earlier post said Obama is more likely an agnostic than a muslim. Well, if it is irrational for Corey to speculate on his possible isalmic affiliations without proof why is it not just as irrational to speculate on his possible agnosticism without proof? That he states that he is a Christian is not any kind of real evidence- he also claims he's a moderate!

What we do have proof of is as I stated before: he has proven to be a liar, and he has proven to be narcissistic. When someone goes to such great lengths to be secretive about their past in spite of coveting one of the most public and prominent positions in the world it is cause for some concern.

My opinion is this: I believe Obama is the only religion Obama respects. Who cares if he might turn out to be a muslim, a satanist, a wiccan or a dirt-worshipper? Everything we already know him to be is already worse than any of those things.

Edited March 2, 2011 by SapereAude

[CapitalistSwine]

but I am not sure I am willing to commit to the idea.

Note I did not just say commit to the likely chance, but to the very idea itself. Let me know if you need that in a larger size.

"According to his own accounts, Obama was roomed with Muslim foreign exchange students while attending Columbia. Is it normal procedure for foreign exchange programs to room foreign muslims with American Christians? It would seem to me that a more commonsense policy would be to try to avoid cultural and religious frictions by rooming muslim foreign students with other muslim foreign students. (Does anyone know what the typical policy is???)"

I know a person from Bangladesh that went to one of these schools in Indonesia for a time that has a range of different people from different places. I could ask him specifically, but he has led me to believe they are actually pretty well integrated. So it may not be that far-fetched.

Edited March 3, 2011 by CapitalistSwine

[Tanaka]

It would seem to me that a more commonsense policy would be to try to avoid cultural and religious frictions by rooming muslim foreign students with other muslim foreign students.

I agree. Otherwise, the foreign exchange students would have to interact with the people they came here to interact with. That would be ridiculous. Next thing you know, they're banging white chicks.

Let's instead just isolate them all in a corner of the campus. Send over some fertilizer and diesel while we're at it, in case they wanna start a farm.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Tanaka

[SapereAude]

It would seem we are now at the appropriate point for me to ask that the rhetoric stay on topic and not get any more heated.

[CapitalistSwine]

Someone in an earlier post said Obama is more likely an agnostic than a muslim. Well, if it is irrational for Corey to speculate on his possible isalmic affiliations without proof why is it not just as irrational to speculate on his possible agnosticism without proof?

To be fair, I never said I had proof, I stated that it was basically a growing and sneaking suspicion of mine but that I was not willing to commit to that idea, for that exact reason, that I don't have any sufficient proof to suggest it, just speculation. I have also not called Corey irrational. Perhaps clarification was needed where there was none. I have now now provided it. I would certainly agree that, in light of my speculation on agnosticism, he is much morel likely either A) Christian or B)Opportunistic with respect to his religion and so the best we may be able to get as far as any non-official likeliness of him being another religion is going to be on shaky ground. However, I will state that compared to my reasoning for him potentially being Christian, mine is still categorically different than Corey's for the potentiality of him being Muslim.

As far as his education and birth certificates...it is fishy but thats all I can really surmise from that.

Edited March 3, 2011 by CapitalistSwine

[SapereAude]

To be fair, I never said I had proof, I stated that it was basically a growing and sneaking suspicion of mine but that I was not willing to commit to that idea, for that exact reason, that I don't have any sufficient proof to suggest it, just speculation. I have also not called Corey irrational. Perhaps clarification was needed where there was none. I have now now provided it.

Apologies if my point was unclear.

While you were the one who stated the speculation that he was more likely agnostic than muslim I was directing my post at the others on this topic who were saying that people who speculate about Obama possibly being muslim were being irrational unless they have some proof.

My point was that many apply a double standard when it comes to Obama. If it is irrational to speculate on whether Obama is a muslim without proof then it must be deemed equally irrational to speculate anything else about his spirituality/religion without proof. My post was not aimed at you, your post was merely the example I used to illustrate an important point about burden of proof being subjectively applied on this topic.

[Dante]

My point was that many apply a double standard when it comes to Obama. If it is irrational to speculate on whether Obama is a muslim without proof then it must be deemed equally irrational to speculate anything else about his spirituality/religion without proof. My post was not aimed at you, your post was merely the example I used to illustrate an important point about burden of proof being subjectively applied on this topic.

I actually said paranoia, not irrationality, and I would stand by that characterization. People who are claiming that he is Muslim are, in essence, claiming that he subscribes to some religious agenda which he hides from everyone, but plans to enact discretely during his time as president. The claim that he is a closet agnostic, on the other hand, merely reflects the idea that he has concealed a lack of belief in God in order to pursue political power. Agnosticism, after all, doesn't come with a pre-attached agenda. Well, I already believe that he (and most other politicians) conceals all sorts of personal views in the pursuit of political power; power-hungriness and an easiness with deception are both kind of prerequisites for the job. What I find more paranoid is the claim that he, or politicians in general, snuck into office by claiming one thing while they actually have an alternative, definite ideology in mind. Personally, I find the claim that Obama has no ideology other than the pursuit of power much easier to swallow than the claim that he has some alternative ideology that he is pursuing covertly.

EDIT: This is simply my analysis of my own gut reaction to the two claims, and why I think I react differently to one than the other; it is not a particularly well-thought-out position. All I'm doing here is putting the basis for my reaction into words, but it makes sense to me as far as it goes.

Edited March 3, 2011 by Dante

[CapitalistSwine]

Apologies if my point was unclear.

While you were the one who stated the speculation that he was more likely agnostic than muslim I was directing my post at the others on this topic who were saying that people who speculate about Obama possibly being muslim were being irrational unless they have some proof.

My point was that many apply a double standard when it comes to Obama. If it is irrational to speculate on whether Obama is a muslim without proof then it must be deemed equally irrational to speculate anything else about his spirituality/religion without proof. My post was not aimed at you, your post was merely the example I used to illustrate an important point about burden of proof being subjectively applied on this topic.

Gotcha.

[agrippa1]

I agree. Otherwise, the foreign exchange students would have to interact with the people they came here to interact with. That would be ridiculous. Next thing you know, they're banging white chicks.

Let's instead just isolate them all in a corner of the campus. Send over some fertilizer and diesel while we're at it, in case they wanna start a farm.

The people they are here to interact with are professors and other students. They will probably find both in the classrooms and on campus, and in various shops, restaurants, and bars in the neighborhood. They might even find white chicks in those bars... maybe even Asians!

Your reply is interesting because you scoff at the idea that muslims might exhibit ... how shall we say ... sensitivities to other cultures, while in the same post suggest that rooming two of them together might, per nature, lead them to commit acts of violence against members of those cultures.

[agrippa1]

Apologies if my point was unclear.

While you were the one who stated the speculation that he was more likely agnostic than muslim I was directing my post at the others on this topic who were saying that people who speculate about Obama possibly being muslim were being irrational unless they have some proof.

My point was that many apply a double standard when it comes to Obama. If it is irrational to speculate on whether Obama is a muslim without proof then it must be deemed equally irrational to speculate anything else about his spirituality/religion without proof. My post was not aimed at you, your post was merely the example I used to illustrate an important point about burden of proof being subjectively applied on this topic.

Sorry to fine point this, but it is irrational to speculate "with proof." Proof, in either direction, ends speculation.

It is entirely rational to speculate without proof, provided there is some evidence to support the speculation, and an absence of proof that the speculation is false.

Speculation is the rational exploration of the realm of possibility. Obama's inexplicable failure to produce existing documents that would reasonably be expected to provide proof of his assertions about himself is, in and of itself, evidence (not proof) that his assertions are false, and that some other explanation is true.

He has fought the release of this birth certificate, even though HI officials have claimed it exists. There is documentary proof that he was enrolled by his adoptive stepfather in a school in Indonesia, with his name and religion certified as "Soetoro" and "islam." There is no documentation that he legally changed his name back to Obama, or withdrew any legal claims to Indonesian citizenship conferred by his adoption (if it even occurred). There is documentation that would prove whether or not he enrolled in any of his universities as Barry Soetoro, as a muslim, or as a citizen of Indonesia, but he has successfully blocked the release of that documentation, for reasons that the mainstream media has found no incentive to uncover. That, in and of itself, is evidence that the wide-held impression, that he enrolled as the American student Barack Obama, is false.

[Tanaka]

in the same post suggest that rooming two of them together might, per nature, lead them to commit acts of violence against members of those cultures.

Was I suggesting that? Or was that a joke?

[SapereAude]

Sorry to fine point this, but it is irrational to speculate "with proof." Proof, in either direction, ends speculation.

It is entirely rational to speculate without proof, provided there is some evidence to support the speculation, and an absence of proof that the speculation is false.

Speculation is the rational exploration of the realm of possibility. Obama's inexplicable failure to produce existing documents that would reasonably be expected to provide proof of his assertions about himself is, in and of itself, evidence (not proof) that his assertions are false, and that some other explanation is true.

Your point is well taken but 'twas not I making the assertion that one shouldn't speculate without proof.

I'm glad you took the time to post this though as I had to cut my post short to do some work.

I think in a couple posts here people are using (incorrectly) "proof" interchangeably with "evidence".

Edited March 3, 2011 by SapereAude

[agrippa1]

Your point is well taken but 'twas not I making the assertion that one shouldn't speculate without proof.

I'm glad you took the time to post this though as I had to cut my post short to do some work.

I think in a couple posts here people are using (incorrectly) "proof" interchangeably with "evidence".

I should have made it clear that I wasn't contradicting, just clarifying what you wrote. Getting "proof" and "evidence" mixed is too common. Rumsfeld's dictum "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is a good example, and is false. It should have been "absence of proof is not proof of absence.

[Tanaka]

Rumsfeld's dictum "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is a good example, and is false.

I agree that it's false, but the person who said it first (at least on record) was cosmologist Martin Rees. Carl Sagan actually quoted Reese, in his book on the scientific method, as an example of a foolish thing to say. Ever since that book came out, the world has been inundated with maroons quoting Sagan, thinking he actually meant it.

I guess Rummy's one of them.

It should have been "absence of proof is not proof of absence.

That's not a general truth either. If you were to go over to a distant planet, for instance, on a scientific fact finding mission, and came back, equipment intact, claiming it's full of docile bee-like insects, but you haven't brought back samples, it would be safe to say that the absence of proof is proof of the absence of the bees you mentioned.

[agrippa1]

Was I suggesting that? Or was that a joke?

You tell me:

Let's instead just isolate them all in a corner of the campus. Send over some fertilizer and diesel while we're at it, in case they wanna start a farm.

BTW, I agree that isolating a group of foreign muslims on a campus and providing them the raw materials for IED's would be a bad idea, just for the record. I also believe that rooming a foreign muslim with, say, an American Baptist or Jew, would also not be the best idea. Your faith in the basic character of man is commendable, but it ignores the reality of a religious ideology that defines itself by its demand (through violent intimidation, if its founding document can be taken at its word) for islam ("submission") to its dogma.

[Tanaka]

You tell me:

It was just a joke.

[agrippa1]

That's not a general truth either. If you were to go over to a distant planet, for instance, on a scientific fact finding mission, and came back, equipment intact, claiming it's full of docile bee-like insects, but you haven't brought back samples, it would be safe to say that the absence of proof is proof of the absence of the bees you mentioned.

I've been to Australia, and I claim that it's full of intelligent people, but I have not brought back any samples, even though my equipment is intact. Therefore there are no intelligent people in Australia. Certainly no evidence here to dispute that conclusion!