18% of Brits wouldn't want "jewish" PM [Archive]

Cleon

23rd January 2004, 10:14 AM

headscratcher4

23rd January 2004, 10:14 AM

I hate to say it, but I think it would be a problem in the US...I think there is enough residual, latent and overt anti-semitism lingering about that it would be next to impossible to elect a Jew President. I could be wrong, but I used to work for two Senators, both Jewish, and we got anti-semitic mail everyday (by this I mean letters that used words like "kike" etc. as opposed to opposition to a political position, etc.). Both were/are quite popular in their respective states...but I don't think either could run for President. I hope I am wrong about this...

Does anyone know what the statistics are regarding holocaust deniers in the US?

demon

23rd January 2004, 10:15 AM

"Heck, 15% denying the holocaust actually doesn't seem that bad to me...I mean given the numbers in this country who believe in creationism, ghosts, esp and Michael Jackson ...."...

Interesting comment, you could also have mentioned that 7 out of 10 believe Saddam was responsible for 9/11 too.

wollery

23rd January 2004, 10:19 AM

I don't care what religion the prime minister has, so long as they don't base their decisions on their religious doctrines. I really don't want Michael Howard to be prime minister, but that's because he scares the crap out of me!

Cleopatra

23rd January 2004, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by wollery
I don't care what religion the prime minister has, so long as they don't base their decisions on their religious doctrines. I really don't want Michael Howard to be prime minister, but that's because he scares the crap out of me!

From what I know about him he is not into the religion thing at all and that his enemies are really scared of him not because he is jewish of course but because he is competent.

Giz

23rd January 2004, 10:24 AM

I'm in a bit of shock - almost 1 in 5!?

I did think we were somewhat more enlightened than that. Mind you, worrying thought, I suppose I may have been lulled into accepting my circle of friends/colleagues (mostly graduates, fairly comfortably off), as being representative of the public.

I do wonder where they polled the 1007 people. I imagine they could picked certain limited areas where, for religious or political reasons (such as a high proportion of Guardian readers), roughly 100% would equate Jew=Israeli (and vote imagining imagine Sharon Jnr at No 10).

Cleon

23rd January 2004, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by headscratcher4
I hate to say it, but I think it would be a problem in the US...I think there is enough residual, latent and overt anti-semitism lingering about that it would be next to impossible to elect a Jew President. I could be wrong, but I used to work for two Senators, both Jewish, and we got anti-semitic mail everyday. Both were/are quite popular in their respective states...but I don't think either could run for President. I hope I am wrong about this...

Does anyone know what the statistics are regarding holocaust deniers in the US?

I think it's difficult to quantify what is a "Holocaust denier." There are people who think the number's been exagerrated, there are those who denied it happened altogether, there are those who think lots of people died but the Nazis didn't kill them. There are those who deny the use of gas chambers, but don't deny the Einzatzgruppen or mass starvation.

For example, David Irving doesn't completely deny the Holocaust, he just thinks the number of dead is closer to 1,000,000, most of it unintentional on the part of the Nazis. He's still a denier, IMO, but his not in the same camp as those hard-core types who don't think the Nazis killed anyone and it's all just a Jewish plot to extort money from Germany and beg support for Israel.

Furious

23rd January 2004, 10:30 AM

From the US perspective ...

I don't deny that a significant portion of the voting population wouldnt vote for a candidate just because he's Jewish, but I don't think it would be the deciding factor in an election. Strangely enough, Lieberman resonates well with conservatives, its the fact that he's trying to be a Democrat that's killing him.

If the candidate was Muslim though, they would have absolutely no chance for that reason alone.

geni

23rd January 2004, 10:35 AM

The poll found that 18 percent disagreed with the statement that a Jewish prime minister would be "equally acceptable" to a leader from any other faith. About 53 percent agreed with that statement.

So 18% of people would rather have someone from their own faith than from another.

headscratcher4

23rd January 2004, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by Furious
From the US perspective ...

I don't deny that a significant portion of the voting population wouldnt vote for a candidate just because he's Jewish, but I don't think it would be the deciding factor in an election. Strangely enough, Lieberman resonates well with conservatives, its the fact that he's trying to be a Democrat that's killing him.

If the candidate was Muslim though, they would have absolutely no chance for that reason alone.

Indeed, but I think the tolerance, in part, is because Lieberman doesn't have a realistic chance. If he did, I fear the whispering would begin....remember John McCain in the South Carolina primary three years ago. The McCain's are the adoptive parents of a black or Asian/Indian (thus dark-skinned) child. One might htink this was to their credit. The Bush people (they deny it, of course) were behind an infamous "push-poll" that asked voters "would you still vote for McCain if you knew he had a black baby?"

Needless to say, he lost. It might not have been the Push-poll, but it was S. Carolina, and somebody tried it (if not the Bush camp directly) because they thought it would work.

Now, imagine such push polling with Lieberman in the Bible belt, the South, Utah? You get the picture. It might not keep him from being elected (being a Democrat could also in those areas), but it certainly would be tried because it would get some to the polls to vote against a Jew trying to take over Christian America...etc.

Cain

23rd January 2004, 10:49 AM

In an essay favoring atheists and skeptics to adopt the "Bright" label, Michael Shermer writes:

In 1999 a Gallup poll inquired of Americans: “If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be an X would you vote for that person?” X represents Catholic, Jew, Baptist, Mormon, black, homosexual, woman, or atheist. Although six of the eight received more than 90 percent approval—showing that America has become a more tolerant and ecumenical society—only 59 percent said they would vote for a homosexual, and less than half, 49 percent, would vote for an atheist.

The Pew Center took a similar poll in 2003:

Between now and the 2004 political conventions, there will be discussion about the qualifications of presidential candidates -- their education, age, religion, race, and so on. If your party nominated a generally well-qualified person for president who happened to be the following things would you vote for that person?

Catholic:
Yes: 90%
No: 8%
Don't know/Refused: 2%

Jewish:
Yes: 85%
No: 10%
Don't know/Refused: 5%

Muslim:
Yes: 56%
No: 38%
Don't know/Refused: 6%

An atheist:
Yes: 46%
No: 50%
Don't know/Refused: 4%

An evangelical Christian:
Yes: 79%
No: 15%
Don't know/Refused: 6%

The article here (http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/000455.html) contains a link to the original press release.

Furious

23rd January 2004, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by headscratcher4

Indeed, but I think the tolerance, in part, is because Lieberman doesn't have a realistic chance. If he did, I fear the whispering would begin....remember John McCain in the South Carolina primary three years ago. The McCain's are the adoptive parents of a black or Asian/Indian (thus dark-skinned) child. One might htink this was to their credit. The Bush people (they deny it, of course) were behind an infamous "push-poll" that asked voters "would you still vote for McCain if you knew he had a black baby?"

Needless to say, he lost. It might not have been the Push-poll, but it was S. Carolina, and somebody tried it (if not the Bush camp directly) because they thought it would work.

Now, imagine such push polling with Lieberman in the Bible belt, the South, Utah? You get the picture. It might not keep him from being elected (being a Democrat could also in those areas), but it certainly would be tried because it would get some to the polls to vote against a Jew trying to take over Christian America...etc.

Well, as long as we're getting into pure speculation ... :)

I'd argue that the "whisperings" of Bush being an alcoholic and ex-coke head would theoretically more damaging to a campaign, yet he was able to get the presidency despite that.

I wouldn't argue that something like what you mentioned didn't hurt Mcain, I just think it wasn't THE reason he didn't beat Bush.

Kennedy's Catholicism was a bigger issue during his campaign than Lieberman's Judaism is. There will probably always be latent phobias about a candidates religion, but I don't see it as a game-breaker anymore.

With enough painting and spin, any unelectable trait can be overcome.

headscratcher4

23rd January 2004, 11:09 AM

Hope you're right and that I am just overly pessimistic.

TillEulenspiegel

23rd January 2004, 11:34 AM

I'm a little surprised at the number, one would expect that kind of response from US citizens but I always though that the UK populas was more enlightened in matters of race, color and religion . I know there's that whole hooligen/Paki thing as every country has it's own peccadillos. I suspect that the polls cited are more demonstrative of the way people like to see themselves then any real indication of the hard truth. People always want to see themselves as reasonable , likewise that they are honest, good drivers and great chefs.

renata

23rd January 2004, 11:34 AM

Does anyone have access to the poll, how the questions were formulated, what the other results were? Newspaper accounts of polls are notoriously unreliable.
This, for example

The poll found that 18 percent disagreed with the statement that a Jewish prime minister would be "equally acceptable" to a leader from any other faith. About 53 percent agreed with that statement.

What did the remaining 29% say? Because as it looks like now, only 53% would accept a Jewish PM, as opposed to a leader from any other faith. In the worst interpretation, if indeed the pollmakers included all other faiths, it is the Jews specifically that people who answered had a problem with-not merely wanting someone from one's own faith.

I remember reading a quote attributed to Margaret Thatcher "There is no anti-Semitism in England because we do not feel inferior to the Jews." I have been unable to verify the accuracy or the source, but I always liked it.

Mike B.

23rd January 2004, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by TillEulenspiegel
I'm a little surprised at the number, one would expect that kind of response from US citizens but I always though that the UK populas was more enlightened in matters of race, color and religion . I know there's that whole hooligen/Paki thing as every country has it's own peccadillos. I suspect that the polls cited are more demonstrative of the way people like to see themselves then any real indication of the hard truth. People always want to see themselves as reasonable , likewise that they are honest, good drivers and great chefs.

Hmmmm...

Tend to paint with a very broad brush, don't you think?

Mike B.

23rd January 2004, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by demon
"Heck, 15% denying the holocaust actually doesn't seem that bad to me...I mean given the numbers in this country who believe in creationism, ghosts, esp and Michael Jackson ...."...

Interesting comment, you could also have mentioned that 7 out of 10 believe Saddam was responsible for 9/11 too.

Wow...Way to dodge the issue!!!

Good Job!

JamesM

23rd January 2004, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by renata
Does anyone have access to the poll, how the questions were formulated, what the other results were?
Take a look here (http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2004/jc-jewish-poll-jan-2004.htm), courtesy of pollsters ICM.

For those who like to be warned of such things, on that page, clicking on 'View Full Data Set' links to a PDF.

whitefork

23rd January 2004, 12:12 PM

I was about to bring up Benjamin Disraeli, but it appears his father had converted to Christianity. With a name like Disraeli could he make it as PM today?

renata

23rd January 2004, 12:32 PM

Originally posted by JamesM

Take a look here (http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/reviews/2004/jc-jewish-poll-jan-2004.htm), courtesy of pollsters ICM.

For those who like to be warned of such things, on that page, clicking on 'View Full Data Set' links to a PDF.

Well...that is more depressing than the article. Then again we have seen the claims of a jewish clique controlling US policy and starting wars on these very boards, why am I surprised or disappointed?

Same old crap, over and over and over....

Cue someone saying- but Jews do control banks-government-media-politics-Hollywood-medicine-science-and so on.

TillEulenspiegel

23rd January 2004, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by Mike B.

Hmmmm...

Tend to paint with a very broad brush, don't you think?

If there is a particular point or statement I made that you belive is overly broad please point it out. The whole effort of polls it to take a numerically tiny proportion of the body and project mathematically a mean standard of responses. The threads title is one of those.. how have I diverged from a topic of generalities when I speak in general terms?

CFLarsen

23rd January 2004, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by renata
Well...that is more depressing than the article. Then again we have seen the claims of a jewish clique controlling US policy and starting wars on these very boards, why am I surprised or disappointed?

Same old crap, over and over and over....

Cue someone saying- but Jews do control banks-government-media-politics-Hollywood-medicine-science-and so on.

I think this goes back to the days when Jews couldn't own land. Ergo, they "had" to make a living in other areas, like banking. Ergo, they soon controlled the whole shebang. Ergo, they were responsible for every economical downfall ever since.

OK. Fine. But shouldn't that make the Jews responsible for the economic growth, too?

The idea of a world-wide Jewish secret cabal/conspiracy is ridiculous. You just can't control a whole world like that. We know about Clinton and the cigar, we know about Charles and his wish to be reborn as Camilla's tampon, we even know about Paris Hilton and her lousy video. There is very little that we do not know - or will know. It all comes out, sooner or later.

Sheeesh....

headscratcher4

23rd January 2004, 01:03 PM

The idea of a world-wide Jewish secret cabal/conspiracy is ridiculous. You just can't control a whole world like that. We know about Clinton and the cigar, we know about Charles and his wish to be reborn as Camilla's tampon, we even know about Paris Hilton and her lousy video. There is very little that we do not know - or will know. It all comes out, sooner or later.

Of course you know about all of the above...these are just the kinds of distractions that the illuminati want you to know about to keep the focus off their satanic plots...are you so blind that you can't see?

Cleon

23rd January 2004, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

The idea of a world-wide Jewish secret cabal/conspiracy is ridiculous. You just can't control a whole world like that. We know about Clinton and the cigar, we know about Charles and his wish to be reborn as Camilla's tampon, we even know about Paris Hilton and her lousy video. There is very little that we do not know - or will know. It all comes out, sooner or later.

Sheeesh....

Hah! I wish we had that kind of cabal. If it's out there, they're seriously late in sending my paycheck.

Of course, the more ironic parts of me remembers the great battles my extended family would wage over great matters of state, like the age-old question of "where do you want to go for dinner?" Then I remember these weirdos who are convinced Jews are manipulating the world and think, "you've got to be kidding me!"

Nikk

23rd January 2004, 01:17 PM

Well I wonder what would happen if you carried out a similar survey but substituted the word Scot/Irish/Welsh/Oxbridge Graduates/Blacks/Asians/Catholics for Jew or Jews.

I suspect that for any distinct subgroup you would get a good proportion of critical responses.

As regards the holocaust denial arguments, people naturally try to play down and disbelieve really unpleasant truths, its a matter of psychological self protection. Arthur Koestler noted this as long ago as 1944 when he was trying to alert people to the scale of Nazi atrocities in Europe and found that soldiers and civilians alike discounted his arguments as anti-german propaganda.

A small minority like wossisname Irving?? may have a different agenda of course.

Skeptic

23rd January 2004, 02:12 PM

I hate to say it, but I think it would be a problem in the US...I think there is enough residual, latent and overt anti-semitism lingering about that it would be next to impossible to elect a Jew President.

Indeed so. Of course, this might have something to do with the fact that in the US you have to claim to believe in Jesus to be elected. You cannot really be a Hindu, or Buddhist, or atheist, either.

Does anyone know what the statistics are regarding holocaust deniers in the US?

Well, recently, there was a big brouhaha about the claim that about 20% of Americans are "holocaust deniers". But the question asked was something like this: "Do you consider it not impossible that the holocaust didn't occur?".

This was a convuluted double-negative which also asks not if the holocaust did or did not happen, but whether it's POSSIBLE that it didn't happen (hey, it's POSSIBLE. It's also POSSIBLE I am the only existing creature and the rest of the world is an illusion.)

When asked simply "do you think the holocaust happened"?, only about 1% said that it didn't, and only 2-3% expressed doubt.

The Fool

23rd January 2004, 02:28 PM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Let's wait to see what our British friends will say about it.

If 18% of a population in a country like Britain which is one of the most liberal and democratic countries in Europe think like that imagine what the rest of the Europeans think...

I wonder what percentage of Israelis do you imagine would accept an Anglican prime minister? Eh cleo? Let me guess, Its an irrelevant question because Israel was founded as a one religion state. There are some similarities with the "official" Anglican Religion..... so this sort of attitude that you find so abhorent in others is not only acceptable but enshrined in israel? You support this attitude in Israel but not elsewhere?

crackmonkey

23rd January 2004, 02:37 PM

Sounds RACIST...

karl

23rd January 2004, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by Cain
An atheist:
Yes: 46%
No: 50%
Don't know/Refused: 4%

Oh vey! Anti-atheism rears its ugly head. [Runs off to find a pool to throw a spotlight into]

a_unique_person

23rd January 2004, 03:37 PM

DanishDynamite

23rd January 2004, 03:39 PM

This bit from the article deserves a mention:A survey released by the Anti-Defamation League in December showed 43 percent of Americans also believe Israel is a threat to world peace...So, in the US 43% think Israel is a threat to world peace. In Europe, the figure was 59%. Odd how the US hasen't been bashed for this blatant antisemitism.

Cleopatra:If 18% of a population in a country like Britain which is one of the most liberal and democratic countries in Europe think like that...Britain is no more democratic than any other west European country....imagine what the rest of the Europeans think... Okay, I'm imagining.....hmmm.....I think I'm getting something.....is it something beginning with a "B"?....No wait!....does it start with a "Q" or a Q-like sound?....a "C"?....a "D"?....an "F"?....is it a consonant?....*sigh*....I guess I just don't know.

What do you imagine they are thinking?

Supercharts

23rd January 2004, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by The Fool

I wonder what percentage of Israelis do you imagine would accept an Anglican prime minister? Eh cleo? Let me guess, Its an irrelevant question because Israel was founded as a one religion state. There are some similarities with the "official" Anglican Religion..... so this sort of attitude that you find so abhorent in others is not only acceptable but enshrined in israel? You support this attitude in Israel but not elsewhere?

Mr. Patzer,

When one likes to "play" chess yet continually plays the same opening and loses that person should either restudy the opening or pick one that is easily understood and within ones skill set and experience. Or stop playing chess.

Skeptic

23rd January 2004, 04:43 PM

I wonder what percentage of Israelis do you imagine would accept an Anglican prime minister?

(Que in "the Fool"'s method of argument)

Are you a mind reader????

Did you ask all the israelies????

How DARE you imply RACIST CONCLUSIONS about what the israelies believe WITHOUT DATA, you RACIST!!!!!!

P.S.

Your attempt to move the thread from British antisemitism to its "real topic" of how awful the israelies are had been noted and refused.

P.P.S.

For the record, and to show how little you know about israel, most israelies I know have great respect for England and Engish character.

They remember well how, like israel today, England in WWII stood alone agaist a savage enemy bent on its destruction. If a competent Englishman of the Churchillian stripe were to present himself as a candidate for the Prime Minister's office, he would be elected in a landslide, if he were a devil worshipper.

(Ohhhhh, I said "savage". Cue in "The Fool"'s backround music: "racist!" "zionist!" "non-multiculturalist!", "are you a mindreader????", etc.)

Skeptic

23rd January 2004, 04:57 PM

I remember reading a quote attributed to Margaret Thatcher "There is no anti-Semitism in England because we do not feel inferior to the Jews." I have been unable to verify the accuracy or the source, but I always liked it.

Is it perhaps a take on the statement attributed to the Danish King when, under nazi occupation, he denied to the nazi ruler that the Danes have a jewish problem, since they insist on considering themselves the equals of the jews among them?

(P.S. It could very well be that this quote, like the story about the Danish king putting on the yellow star himself, are not true.

The fact that such "good stories" are often not true does not, of course, detract from the very real and brave help the Dutch gave their jews during the nazi occupation.)

NullPointerException

23rd January 2004, 05:10 PM

Anti-semitism is obviously a horrible epidemic, whereas the 50+% who wouldn't vote for an atheist and consider us incompetent are just harmless!

Mycroft

23rd January 2004, 08:50 PM

Originally posted by NullPointerException
Anti-semitism is obviously a horrible epidemic, whereas the 50+% who wouldn't vote for an atheist and consider us incompetent are just harmless!

The bias against you doesn't take away from the bias against someone else.

Reginald

23rd January 2004, 10:25 PM

I wouldn't give a stuff what religion any potential candidate was. Likewise I wouldn't care what race they were either. There are unenlightened people in the UK, just like there are in any other country.

I view a candidate on their potential to do the job.

peptoabysmal

23rd January 2004, 10:38 PM

18%? To me that sounds more like statistical background noise than anything meaningful.

Cain

23rd January 2004, 10:54 PM

Originally posted by Mycroft

The bias against you doesn't take away from the bias against someone else.

Yes, but the narrative has been -- and this gets pounded here on the forums -- how racist europeans are against Jews. The world-wide spread of anti-Semitism.

I'd like to see more statistics on europe of the kind presented above, especially comparing all types of religious views.

"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." -- Bush Sr.

Now I don't feel particularly discriminated against as an atheist. Atheists tend to be fairly well-educated with above average incomes. They've attained influential positions in the media, science, medicine, law and so on. I think Richard Dawkins said over 90% of members of the National Academy of Sciences are either atheists or agnostics.

Now compare Muslims. Around 38% of people would not vote for a well-qualified Muslim nominated by their party? America's ~2/5 versus Britain's ~1/6

Fifteen percent of Britons believe claims about the Holocaust have been exaggerated, and that's an alarming figure.

But take an ongoing atrocity -- though no where on the scale of the Holocaust -- and ask American opinion. You can pose a very simple question about the ratio of killings between Israelis to Palestinians. Past polls show we get it wrong.

mbp

23rd January 2004, 11:58 PM

Originally posted by Skeptic

(P.S. It could very well be that this quote, like the story about the Danish king putting on the yellow star himself, are not true.

It isn't. Noone was made to wear the yellow star in denmark during the war.

The fact that such "good stories" are often not true does not, of course, detract from the very real and brave help the Dutch gave their jews during the nazi occupation.)
And what have the Dutch got to do with the Danish king?
Just wondering. :p

The Fool

24th January 2004, 03:26 AM

Originally posted by Skeptic
I wonder what percentage of Israelis do you imagine would accept an Anglican prime minister?

(Que in "the Fool"'s method of argument)

Are you a mind reader????

Did you ask all the israelies????

How DARE you imply RACIST CONCLUSIONS about what the israelies believe WITHOUT DATA, you RACIST!!!!!!

P.S.

Your attempt to move the thread from British antisemitism to its "real topic" of how awful the israelies are had been noted and refused.

P.P.S.

For the record, and to show how little you know about israel, most israelies I know have great respect for England and Engish character.

They remember well how, like israel today, England in WWII stood alone agaist a savage enemy bent on its destruction. If a competent Englishman of the Churchillian stripe were to present himself as a candidate for the Prime Minister's office, he would be elected in a landslide, if he were a devil worshipper.

(Ohhhhh, I said "savage". Cue in "The Fool"'s backround music: "racist!" "zionist!" "non-multiculturalist!", "are you a mindreader????", etc.)
I just wondered if you would like to have a guess? 18% of Britons would not want a Jewish prime minister? What percentage would not want a catholic, or a muslim, or a hindu, or a Jehovas witness?

I know you desperately want to see something other than religious bigotry expressed against any religion different from protestant religions...please explain how this stat shows anything other than that....

I'm not sure if you are completely stupid or not, certainly you cannot read a simple sentence that I post and see that I have made no claims to "mind read Israelis" please show me where I did. But while we are on the topic..Is it possible for an anglican to become prime minister of Israel irrespective of the views of the electorate? I'm genuinly curious...would it be possible do you think?
And in reply to your standard strawman of my position..I was simply asking Cleopatra who supports discrimination based on religion in Israel why she has a problem with the exact same thing in Britain....maybe you could answer rather than throwing tantrums because I have spanked you for racist posts.... If this is anti semitism in Briton, why is the same thing cool in Israel?

24th January 2004, 04:16 AM

Originally posted by CFLarsen

I think this goes back to the days when Jews couldn't own land. Ergo, they "had" to make a living in other areas, like banking. Ergo, they soon controlled the whole shebang. Ergo, they were responsible for every economical downfall ever since.

OK. Fine. But shouldn't that make the Jews responsible for the economic growth, too?

The idea of a world-wide Jewish secret cabal/conspiracy is ridiculous. You just can't control a whole world like that. We know about Clinton and the cigar, we know about Charles and his wish to be reborn as Camilla's tampon, we even know about Paris Hilton and her lousy video. There is very little that we do not know - or will know. It all comes out, sooner or later.

Sheeesh....

Yup, that is just what THEY want you to believe. The Jews, Claus, are more clever than an inbred Royal, more devious than an inbred hillbilly, more nefarious than a Blond. They won't be happy until your blond, nordic daughters marry Yankel and are riding his Hebrew National Salami
http://www.jewfest.com/newjewfest/hasidicjew.jpg
One day you will thank me for setting you straight.

shemp

24th January 2004, 04:29 AM

Originally posted by Furious
With enough painting and spin, any unelectable trait can be overcome.

I wonder how one would spin it if a candidate were into cannibalism, necrophilia and/or bestiality?

24th January 2004, 04:30 AM

Originally posted by shemp

I wonder how one would spin it if a candidate were into cannibalism, necrophilia and/or bestiality?

Recycling, Cultural Diversity, Animal Rights?

shemp

24th January 2004, 04:34 AM

Actually, I would be more likely to vote for a candidate who is open about his/her bestiality than someone who lies about his motives for starting a war.

But cannibalism and necrophilia are right out! We'll have none of that! Except on Saturday nights, of course.

Cleopatra

26th January 2004, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by Nikk
Well I wonder what would happen if you carried out a similar survey but substituted the word Scot/Irish/Welsh/Oxbridge Graduates/Blacks/Asians/Catholics for Jew or Jews.

After I read the poll and saw the way the questions were posed I tend to agree with you.

I have started being very skeptical towards polls. This is the reason why I prefer what Simon Weisenthal Centre does; They report each incident, they do not post statistics.

I suspect that for any distinct subgroup you would get a good proportion of critical responses.

Be honest. Would you like to have a vegetarian for a PM? :p

Danish Dynamite my dearest danish shadow, of course all the European countries have Democracy, Britain has the oldest democratic tradition, that's all.

Allow me to be biased with the Brits, allow me to have a flaw for Christ sake...

:p

bjornart

26th January 2004, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Danish Dynamite my dearest danish shadow, of course all the European countries have Democracy, Britain has the oldest democratic tradition, that's all.

No, that would be Iceland. Or, that's what the Icelanders like to say with their 1000 year old Allthing.

DanishDynamite

27th January 2004, 11:21 AM

Cleopatra:Danish Dynamite my dearest danish shadow, of course all the European countries have Democracy, Britain has the oldest democratic tradition, that's all.

Allow me to be biased with the Brits, allow me to have a flaw for Christ sake...

:p This is already bias number 2. You can at most be allowed one more. ;)

Luke T.

27th January 2004, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by headscratcher4
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=518&ncid=732&e=3&u=/ap/20040123/ap_on_re_eu/britain_jewish_poll

Heck, 15% denying the holocaust actually doesn't seem that bad to me...I mean given the numbers in this country who believe in creationism, ghosts, esp and Michael Jackson ....

I know this has already been pointed out, but the 15 percent aren't denying the Holocaust took place. They simply believe the extent of it may be exxagerated.

The poll found that 15 percent of Britons believe the scale of the Holocaust has been exaggerated, while 72 percent disagreed. The rest expressed no opinion.

6 million is a large number to swallow.

As for the 18% opposed to a Jew, the poll is tainted by:

Michael Howard, leader of Britain's main opposition Conservative Party, is Jewish, and stands to become prime minister if the party wins the next national election.

They respondents may have had Howard on their mind when they took the poll and answered based on their opposition to the Conservative Party or his politics as much as to his Judaism.

Someone else made a good point that people may just prefer someone from their own faith in office. That isn't necessarily a slam at Jews.

And the poll that Cain posted shows evangelical Christians at a greater disadvantage than Jews in the U.S.

All that aside, it is a shame that some people do indeed base their vote heavily on the faith of the person running for office. But before we get all high and mighty, how many would vote for a Muslim?

I noticed Cain's poll shows Muslims receiving the lowest vote of confidence. This may be a fear of the religion, or it may be based on the fact that a Muslim in the U.S. is synonymous with Black or another person of color.

BillyTK

27th January 2004, 12:16 PM

Originally posted by bjornart

No, that would be Iceland. Or, that's what the Icelanders like to say with their 1000 year old Allthing.
I'd agree, albeit to note that there are certain differences between the modern democratic tradition as per the UK, and the constitution of the Allthing, but anyway, anything to <del>get Cleopatra of our backs</del> dissuade Cleopatra from one of her biases.

Anyway, I'd bet that fifty years ago, there'd probably be an equal number, if not more, Brits who wouldn't have wanted a Catholic prime minister. It's easy to look at such things as anti-Semitism in isolation from the prevailing culture and throw bricks accordingly, but more informative to look at it as an expression of a more fundamental attitude. Of course this could all be right-on liberal bollocks.

Nikk

27th January 2004, 02:01 PM

Originally posted by BillyTK

Anyway, I'd bet that fifty years ago, there'd probably be an equal number, if not more, Brits who wouldn't have wanted a Catholic prime minister.

Would there be a difference today?

If you used the word "Catholic" in a similar poll I expect many of those polled would make an instant connection with the Northern Ireland punch and judy show and object to them.

Indeed in our secular society if you asked people if they wanted a protestant prime minister a substantial minority would think of the Reverend Ian Paisley and respond accordingly.