I agree that people tend to fear something different. However there are enough cases of murder, torture and threats from the Muslims to get a realistic picture of what they stand for. Islam is not religion which suggests morality, honesty, kindness – it is all about power.
The Muslims I have met here come off as very nice, until you disagree with them about anything at all. The voices rise, the eyes flash & contemptuous looks come over their face. They are arrogant,believing they have all the answers,even though they live such stone age type existence in their former countries.
Re: the Patriot Act. Sure people were in favor of it if it could identify those who hope to murder us, but is that what the Patriot Act is looking for now? If so, why would our government put a Muslim on our Homeland Security team? Why would airport checkers be Muslims? And why would Muslim women be exempted from the type of body scans that America women must be subjected to? It makes no sense at all – that’s why we no longer agree with the Patriot Act. It isn’t weeding out those who want to murder us so much as harassing US citizens.
BTW, Islamophobia is ridiculous. People fear Islam because all over the world there are Muslim attacks. Whenever they don’t get what they want, they murder. It’s not a phobia – it’s a reality.

Loral Orow just described many of the Christians that I’ve met and that I see on TV.

Indeed, and Loral will no doubt bristle at the notion that as far as the number of successful terrorist attacks on American soil go, Christians are still ahead of Muslims.

The people who fear the establishment of Sharia law need to read (and understand) the establishment clause. Perhaps they then might contemplate the meaning of the word hypocritical.
Muslims can also take comfort that a 2006 poll which showed that atheists are distrusted more than them.
http://www.asanet.org/press/20060503.cfm

I have no use for religious fanatics of any stripe. But much as I despise Islamic terrorists, I am more fearful of Christian dominionists. Terrorists can kill people but cannot destroy the essence of what America has always represented; dominionists are trying to destroy what America has always represented and replace it with their own fantasies about the Founding Fathers having wanted America to be a Bible-based Christian theocracy (oh, yes, of course, with other religions given full tolerance, naturally…).

There is a personality preference that includes a need for opposition, contention, and even enemies. Sadly, that personality preference currently has a dominance in our culture. But not everyone shares that orientation – including many of us who are Christian. Many folks have far less of a problem with people of all varieties and complexities. My hope is that the rest of us can guide and encourage the more fearfully oriented people toward a sense of safety.There are times when listenening to the minority ensures the overall security of the whole – other wise we reduce ourselves to the status of the proverbial (but not actual) lemmings and dive off whatever precipice is in front of us.

The significant difference and underlying feature of what is occuring in Islamic countries is the burgeoning youth bulge that has happened over the past twenty years. In China and India they are being absorbed into the work force. In the west the youth base is naturally diverse and they rally around multiple causes and can afford other diversions and interests. In many muslim countries with extraodinarily high unemployment, political reasons for discontent, and simmering resentments against capitalist icons and the geopolitical concerns of the west, the one remaining societal element to which they can rally around is Islam. That singularly makes it different,quite dangerous and of concern. No other religion can affect such potential levels of disruption. Let’s hope its channeled positively.

Pertinent comments every one. All I could add would be the tendency, apparently documented by research, for conservatives to be more frightened than liberals. And of course Fox works to make its viewers afraid. It’s harmless to ride a roller coaster for the thrill but it’s self-destructive to watch Fox Noise for the thrill, whether or not you realize that’s why you are watching it.

White evangelicals seem to LOVE to live in “fear”, and Republicans shure seem to love to instill that fear in ‘em. As does Faux ‘News’. It is how they make their profit.

Guess some folks have a need to fear someone! At one time it was folks of a different color—

Well whites are becoming not-a-majority in America, like we were originally. I suppose some whites think all the rest of those folks will get together and decide to do us in. So much to fear, so little time!

It’s both interesting and poingnat that this should come up, as I remember it being raised in one of the sermons at my local Anglican Church parish, as well as in our “Pew News”(our church pew sheet) re-who we see as “scapegoats” if you will, in society, and Muslims sad to say are one of them. Thus,I find it incredibly sad that the press, particularly here in Australia only seem to see one side of Islam, and therefore society at large gets a distorted view of what Islam is truly about. The majority of Muslims don’t want all this senseless violence. To the contrary, they are vehemently opposed to it, and, like their progressive Christian counterparts, are hard at work, to eliminate evil in all it’s forms. Also, contrary to popular belief, Islam is remarkably inclusive, and women don’t necessarily have to wear head covering if they so choose against it. I have a Muslim friend at work, and she’s the lovliest person one could hope to meet. I sincerely hope that, one day, the world will come to a realisation of the true nature of Islam, and learn to accept them as people.

As I pointed out in the February 2nd thread, Yusuf al-Qaradawi returned to Egypt today and immediately made a significant speech in Tahrir. As predicted, the Brotherhood’s tentacles are now spreading. Fox readers should not be alone in their attention to the issue.
Despite the restrictive element of the Establishment Clause, the impact generally flows one way. The principle of separation of church and state merely constrains government officials not to make decisions with the predominant purpose or primary effect of advancing religion. Nevertheless, under the U.S. Federal Arbitration Act , in force since 1925, and similar state-level arbitration codes, private persons (natural as well as legal) can legally agree that disputes between them arising from or relating to their private contractual relationships will be decided exclusively, and largely without appeal rights, by a private arbitrator or arbitral panel. It is through a similar mechanism in the law that al Shar’ia was established in the UK, which has seen shar’iah courts with these powers set up in London, Birmingham, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Bradford and Manchester with the network’s headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire. Nothing in the FAA or any state arbitration code, other than infrequently applied public-policy exceptions, would preclude Islamic or non-Islamic parties in the United States from agreeing to settle their private, civil disputes through arbitration by a Shar’iah court under Shar’iah procedural law.
Bear in mind that there is a distinct difference in law that applies to say businesses, such as companies that contractually agree to establish commerce in Muslim countries and agree to be bound by Shar’iah, and civil law as it applies to the individual. Granted that there are at least five different schools of Islamic thought on al Shar’ia with the Wahhabi brand of Hanbali being the most reactionary. It is not “enforcing” Shar’iah when people volunteer to structure commercial transactions to placate religious or cultural preferences. Any other view would be like seeing kosher products in the grocery store as evidence of the Jewish hegemon.
Although in theory there is a distinction between al Shar’ia and Muslim law in most Islamic countries, one would need to carefully consider those distinctions. In evaluating Shar’iah’s impact one would need to consider its contemporary application vis a vis other religious schools of thought. There are distinct differences between Halakha and Catholic Canon Law and Sharia. Halakha, or the body of rabbinic Jewish law, is no longer normative as applied to the greater body of practicing Jews. Canon law is the body of laws and regulations ‘made by or adopted by ecclesiastical authority, for the government of the Christian organization and its members.’ At this point in time, neither of those schools of thought seeks to apply the body of those strictures as civil jurisprudence. Al Shar’ia does. While Egypt may be heading for the inevitable, reasoned thought and the understanding of what should be legally permissible here, yet not interfere with our constitutional protections, should prevail. I commend to you to this site for further clarifications of the legal differences. http://www.adl.org/religious_freedom/WFU-Divinity-Joint-Statement.pdf

Robert C, I think you are trying a bait and switch on the topic of Sharia law. What you are describing would be a limited and voluntary form of binding arbitration. That’s probably not what people have in mind when they hear the phrase “establish Sharia law.”
For example, could a voluntary Sharia court do any of the following:
Regulate the sale or use of alcohol.
Mandate the closing of shops on Friday.
Create laws against blasphemy.
Prevent the exercise of other religions.
Allow polygamy.
Override the ruling of a US family court awarding custody to the mother.
Create penalties for homosexuality.
Enforce Sharia inheritance laws in the event of someone dying intestate.
Enforce its will on non-Muslims, or Muslims who don’t want to go along with it.

It’s all subject to litigation. Matrimonial law is one field in which US courts enforce religious law all the time. The law typically isn’t Sharia; it is Halakha. Jewish courts in the US do not have the power to civilly divorce or do child custody or support, but they do have the power to divide property and award alimony. And they exercise this power, and US courts routinely enforce it the way they enforce any other arbitration contracts. Additionally, the issue of how prior agreements purporting to impose Islamic law on parties now relocated to the US should be dealt with in U.S. courts is unresolved.

BTW That wasn’t a bait and switch. I was very clear cut in that statement. I also referred those interested to the very comprehensive link on how American law affects religious practice. Read it.

But if you’re going to worry about Shariah law, why not worry about religious law spilling over into the public sphere, in general? There are far more examples of non-Muslim religious legal proceedings that conflict with American law — for example, failing to report alleged child abusers (Jewish courts have mishandled this, too), giving men the power to grant divorces (another Jewish headline recently), etc.

How are these Sharia courts making out in the U.K.? What are they using them for and are they causing problems for the U.K. and other peoples?

I never said I was worried about Shar’ia law here. I worry about its applications elsewhere. I am concerned for Egypt.
I do not believe failure to report abuse of any sort in the US is in conflict with any religious law. The similar application of individual state law in that circumstance would apply to religious
( refer to this excellant informative site) http://www.childwelfare.gov/systemwide/laws_policies/statutes/clergymandated.cfm
as much as it applies to Planned Parenthood or the perpetrators in the Gosnell case. The application of US state law in the matter is still subject subject to litigation and or amendment. As far as Ghet proceedures, the rules governing the ghet are subject to the civil law of the country which has precedence over the Jewish marital law. “On the other hand, if a civil divorce is obtained, there is still an obligation under Jewish law, for the Jewish divorce procedure outlined in this article to be followed: i.e., the husband would still need to deliver the get to the wife and the wife to accept it. Otherwise, the couple may be divorced under the civil law (the law of the land” while still be considered to be married under Jewish law, with all the consequences which follow from that status.

Here are the other two sites referencing the prior post.
http://www.clinicworker.com/
http://www.mea.org/legal/duty_to_report.html
( needed to make it through the filter )

Robert C, I read the linked PDF before I responded. That’s why I said it seemed like voluntary binding arbitration. But I’m not a lawyer so I could easily have not understood something.
OK you’re worried about Egpyt. That’s a rational, but off topic concern given the topic in the post. We all hope everything works out for the best, there’s not a lot we can do about it anyway.
The Jewish divorce issue seems similar to the Roman Catholic one. It’s possible to be divorce in the eyes of the government, but not in the eyes of a religion.
But according to ARIS people change religions pretty frequently. If a person were to remarry in another religion or a civil court, there wouldn’t be any teeth behind the religion’s point of view. The government’s point of view on who’s married and who’s not is the one that counts.

Not so far off topic that whatever happens there influences perceptions here, and more. Here is a German article from Der Spiegel on Qaradawi. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,745526,00.html
Wherein Qaradawi, the world’s 1st “Golbal Mufti”, “advocates establishing a “United Muslim Nations” as a contemporary form of the caliphate and the only alternative to the hegemony of the West. He hates Israel and would love to take up arms himself. In one of his sermons, he asked God “to kill the Jewish Zionists, every last one of them……..throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler.”
And he is the moderate voice. Yes I am concerned.

Well then lets jump in and carry out a worst case scenario thought experiment. Assume Egypt turns into a raving mad Islamic theocracy. The Suez canal is off limits, Egypt allows weapons into Gaza, and a theocratic domino effect spread through the middle east.
Realistically what could the US do given that these are sovereign nations, and two long wars in one decade have stretched the US military and economy?
Domestically I would assume these events make the US political right even more fearful of Islam. This would likely spread to the political left as well. Muslims in the US would likely be further marginalized which would create some amount of radicalization like we see in England.
However, I don’t see how this would have much effect on Sharia law in the US. Largely because it can’t exist in a form that Youssef al-Qaradawi would consider meaningful.

Again. I never said I was worried about Shar’ia law here. You seem determined to make a point. What is it?
BTW do you really think Qaradawi would respect international borders?

My point is to try and end my off topic comment with something on topic. From my point of view the poll indicates that Fox News viewers fear something that is a paper tiger. When that happens it usually means there is a fear monger feeding it. This makes me wonder what other fears these viewers have that might be unrealistic, and what benefit the fear monger expects for their efforts.
As to your closing question. I would expect a fundamentalist regime to be a regional thorn in the side of the US, similar to Iran. The US government would muddle through, as a war would be a really bad idea.

Since perceptions of what happens elsewhere affects perceptions here, I would suggest that its quite pertinent. I would also suggest that their fears are not unrealistic, simply premature.
Iran doesn’t control the Suez Canal, by itself a singular, causative issue for a world war.

You must have misread me. I never said Iran controlled the Suez Canal. It’s controlled by the Suez Canal Authority which is owned by the Egyptian government. So a worst case scenario might be a government similar to Iran’s.
So if their fears are premature do you have a timeline or sequence of events which would make them realistic?

I don’t think so on the misread, and I know you never said that Iran controlled the Suez. You suggested that Egypt would “be a regional thorn in the side of the US, similar to Iran.” Iran is a bad enough scenario considering the potential for nuclear development. However a progressed radicalization in a nation that since 1996 controls more than enough fissionable material for a weapon, has WMD’s, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7181847/
owns Mediterranean ports, controls the 10th largest army in the world, plus the Suez would be a recipe of irretrievable disaster.
Heisenberg’s principle of uncertainty in physics also and equally applies to politics, timelines, litigation, legislation and the affect of media.

FOX News viewers scared of Muslims. Duh! Yah think? LOL. Real shocker there.