Muslims are disliked, violent and unpatriotic: Three graphs of US public opinion

Print More
This graphic is not offered for republication.

This graphic is not offered for republication.

This graphic is not offered for republication.

This graphic is not offered for republication.

How do Americans feel toward Muslims? It isn’t pretty. Compared to other religions, Muslims are disliked and seen as being more violent and less patriotic than other religions. And this was before the recent debates over terrorism and refugees.

The American National Election study included three sets of questions on views toward religious groups. In the first set, respondents were asked to say how “warm” they felt toward different groups on a zero (“cold”) to hundred (“warm”) scale. The public felt warmly toward Christians (in general) and Catholics. Mormons and Christian fundamentalists scored in the middle. But at the “colder” end were atheists and Muslims.

This graphic is not offered for republication.

This graphic is not offered for republication.

While atheists may be disliked, they don’t stand out as being unpatriotic. Muslims, however, are viewed as significantly less patriotic than other religious groups. Less than 40 percent of Americans said that “patriotic” is a word that describes most Muslims. This is roughly half the percentage for other religious groups.


Atheists disliked more than Congress — that’s as low as it gets in public opinion


 

This graphic is not offered for republication.

This graphic is not offered for republication.

Muslims are also seen by the public as being violent. Indeed, more Americans say that most Muslims are “violent” than say they are “patriotic.” Nearly half of Americans say that they think most Muslims are violent. This is about four times the level for Catholics, Protestants, and Mormons.

Bottom-line: Americans, on average, have a view of Muslims that is starkly different than their opinion of other religions. Americans view most Muslims as far more violent and far less patriotic than other religions.

  • Bernardo

    “Muslims are disliked, violent, and unpatriotic: ”

    And why is that?

    A few reasons direct from the koran:

    o “Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends.” (Surah 5:51)

    Quran (8:12) – “I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them”

    Quran (9:5) – “So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captive and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them.”

    And please no “taken out of context” excuses. Said koranic passages (there are many more) are followed literally by Muslim terrorists and their imams and most Muslims still believe said passages are the words of Allah.

  • Jack

    What’s missing from your post, Bernardo, is balance based on reality and truth.

    On the one hand, President George W. Bush made an absolute jackass of himself when after 9/11, he said that “Islam is a peaceful religion.” We know that the teaching of jihad suggests otherwise, as does Islam’s martial history.

    Yet on the other hand, the vast majority of Muslims are demonstrably peaceful.

    So while the warlike aspects of Islam are in plain view, logic suggests that there are other aspects from which most Muslims draw which support peace.

  • Sukhamaya (Sam) Bain

    Jack, the vast majority of Muslims are demonstrably peaceful, because they are also humans. Indeed, the Muslims that are peaceful draw their humanity from sources that are mostly not their religious books. However, most of even those good people who happen to be Muslims due to their birth and childhood brainwash find it too difficult to unconditionally dissociate themselves from the hateful and violent messages of Islam, and they also talk the nonsense talk of “taken out of context”, as Bernardo put it. If the so-called holy books were like gems, to begin with they could not have looked like how they do to the average honest non-Muslim observer.

  • Jack

    Jefferson was a great statesman, but in some matters, he was also a bit of a kook with eccentric and erratic judgment. It took him an exceptionally long time to break ranks with the French Revolution, for example, even when the Reign of Terror was happening.

    On religion, his decision to rewrite the Bible according to his own whims belongs in the Kook Land category, not unlike the Jesus Seminar of today which you seem to like so much.

    As for the book of Revelation, Jefferson, like most people over the past 20 centuries, know next to nothing, because they didn’t realize that key portions of it are paraphrases or direct quotes from the Hebrew prophets of the Old Testament. This is the missing context for it. Once that is understood, it becomes a lot clearer read and understand.

  • Bernardo

    Hmmm, it appears my reply to Jack got deleted. Tough to have a discussion on this blog. Once again, Obama also continues the cry of “Islam is a peaceful religion” when it is obvious it cannot be because Allah via Gabriel via Mohammed demands Muslim control of the world by any means.

    Regarding, OT prophets i.e. fortune tellers, an update: Abraham and Moses are myths as is Noah basically making the OT a worthless book. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F20E1EFE35540C7A8CDDAA0894DA404482

  • Jack

    I agree with you that Islam cannot be considered a peaceful religion, given not just its martial history (Christendom wasn’t much better and sometimes was worse), but its particular teaching about jihad being a perpetual thing.

    But where we disagree strongly is your conclusion that most or all Muslims aren’t peaceful. False….Totally false.

    As for OT prophets and your claim that Abraham and Moses are “myths,” again, you keep broadcasting your ignorance about the rules of historical evidence and how to apply them.

    For the umpteenth time, it is not the absence of corroboration that refutes a document, but the presence of contradiction. Maybe if you tattoo that on your forehead, you’ll remember it each morning, so you won’t keep spouting the same nonsense over and over again.

  • Bernardo

    One more time for Jack’s benefit:

    You will have to read the studies of contemporary historians and NT scholars to see how they decide the authenticity of historical events and passages. Rigorous conclusions rely on the number of independent attestations, the time of the publications, the content as it relates to the subject and time period, and any related archeological evidence. Professors JD Crossan and G. Ludemann’s studies are top notch in this regard. Ditto the studies made by the OT experts consulted by 1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis.

  • Jack

    Crossan and Ludemann are on the far end of the spectrum and again, the Jesus Seminar was based on criteria so subjective, it’s hard to believe that any honest person would take it seriously.

    Again, the problem with saying Moses never existed is that no documents contemporaneous with any of the OT’s Five Books of Moses have been found which say Moses didn’t exist. In the absence of such contrary texts, the operating assumption is that Moses existed. Corroboration is not necessary. This is true of any document of any kind. If someone’s name is mentioned in a purportedly nonfiction work, that person is deemed real until proven otherwise.

    Historical evidence works similarly to legal evidence, where a witness is deemed not to be lying until his or her testimony is successfully impeached under cross-examination. Even if this witness is not corroborated by anyone, the witness is presumed not to be lying so long as the testimony isn’t contradicted.