Nearly one-half of Americans favour restricting Muslims' rights: poll

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
I wonder if most of these 44% are Bush supporters? Right Jsobecky?

I wouldn't know, IC. What does the poll data show you?

www.comm.cornell.edu...

Originally posted by jsobecky
Typical diversion tactics, Durden. Very boring and childish, and not very original.

Posed with a simple question, you cry foul and refuse to answer.
But hey, maybe you feel that's fresh, mature and original?

Buh-bye.

Yeah. Later.


[edit on 19-12-2004 by Durden]

Since the methods of the survety are in question, well, lets look at them.

How did they identify religiousness?

Religiosity�is�measured�only�for�Christian,�Atheist, or�Agnostic�respondents[...]The measure is a standardized addittive index of four seperate questions:
self-reported church attendance, literal interpretation of the Bible, slef-identification as an "evangelical", and whether the respondant beleives Israel is a fufilment of the Biblical prophecy about the second comming of Jesus. [...]respondents were split into [...] low, moderate, or high religiosity

On restrictions of Civil Liberties, what did the survey ask?

[R]espondents were asked wether they agree that 1) Government should have greater power in monitoring internet activities such as email and online transactions, 2) Law enforcement official should be able to indefinitely detain suspected terrorists, 3) We beed to outlaw some un-American actions, even if they're Constitutionally protected, 4) Government officials sometimes need to lie to the press about military operations, 5) In a time of crisis or war, the media should NOT cover anti-war protests, 6) In a time of crisis or war, the media shoudl NOT report comments of individuals who criticize the government, 7) IN a time of war or crisis, individuals should be allowed to stage public protests against the government of its policies, and lastly 8) In a time of war or crisis, individuals should be allowed to criticize publically the government, or its policies

And what are some of the results?

Republicans are significantly more supportive of restrictions than either Deocrats or Independents.[...] In every case, except for a government official sometimes needing to lie, a greater degree of personal religiosity was associated with a higher level of suport for restrictions on civil liberties, [especially for] government monitoring of the Internet, indefinitely detaining terrorists, and the media not reporting criticisms of the government

More, specifically, in relation to Muslims:

[two questions to gage knowledge of islam] whether the respondent knew what name Muslims use to refer to God (Allah), and b) whether the resopndent knew the name of the Islamic equivalent of the Bibke (Koran). Overall, two-thirds of respondent answerd each question correctly

One perception of islam, 27% agreed that Islamic values and beleifs are very similar to western/christian values and beleifs and 47% agreed that the Islamic religion is more likely than others to encourage violence amoung its beleivers. And, bizzarely, they siad these numbers didn't vary significantly according to the above "knowledge of Islam" measure. SO around a third of people who don't know what the muslim name for god is nor what the muslim 'bible' is called also think that islam and christianity are very similiar in their beleifs? Strange.

However, according to religiousity (again, based on those questions about isreal, prophecy, evangelism and the like) 65% of the highly religious perceived islam as more violent than other religions, whereas in the low religiousness category 42% felt so.

Most germaine to this thread, is the portion of Muslim American Civil Liberties.

[R]espondents were asked whether all Muslim Americans should be required to register their whereabouts with the federal government, whether mosques shoudl be closely monitored and/or surveyed by U.S. law enforcement agencies, whether U.S. government agencies should profile citizens as potential threats based on being muslim or having Middle Eastern heritage, and lastly whether Muslim civic and volunteer organizations should be infiltrated by undercover law enforcement agencies to keep watch on their activities and fundraising

48% agreed with none of these statements. 42% of people with high levels of Fear (about impending attacks and the like) agreed that mosques should be monitored and volunteer orgs infiltrated whereas the Low Fear group agreed respectively by 21% and 25%. Infact the Low Fear group disagreed with these monitoriing and registration things much more so. Strangely, 24% of the low fear group agreed that all muslims should register their whereabouts, but only 19 percent agreed that the gov should profile muslims.

As far as party affiliation, 40%Republicans felt they should be required to register with the gov, compared to 24 percent of democrats. 34% republicans felt they should be profiled, and 17 of democrats agreed. I think thats really bizzare. Profiling is a 'hot button' issue, but relatively innocuous compared to having an entire ethnicity/relgion register their movements with the government, and yet more members of all affiliations prefered national registration to mere profiling. I wonder if that has more to do with racial profiling being something that people are more educated about, because they hear about it all the time and have heard more about it, so they tend to look down on it more than something that isn't in the 'public forum'? If anything, this could be perceived as good news, because it might mean that the more educated people become on these issues, the more reasonable they become about them.

For religiousness, 42% of Highs felt that muslims should register, compared to 15% of lows, 34% highs agreed mosques should be monitored, 13% lows (and 33% moderates), 29% highs agreed with profiling compared to 16% of the Lows, and while 40% of Highs agreed that muslim civic and volunteer orgs should be infiltratd, only 19% of Lows did.

Anyway, those are the findings of the report, not that Republicans are wankers or Liberals are good people or that Cornell University is full of pinkos are any of these other reactions that people are having. The methodology seems reasonable and the numbers, where they were related to similar questions on other surverys, seemed to have agreed with those other surverys too. So I don't think one can reject this survery for any of the reasons that some people have been critical about it.

I think rejecting the survey because only 700 odd people took part is a very good reason.

Why, it agrees with other surveys that aren't rejected? Most surverys aren't conducted on 10s of thousands of people anyway, there's no reason to think that such large numbers are required.

The survey was conducted between October 25 and November 23, 2004; it consists of 715 interviews from a national listed household sample. The response rate was 25.7% and the cooperation rate 54.5%, measured according to AAPOR standards. All results presented in this report have been weighted based on age, gender, and race. The margin of error for reported nationwide results is plus or minus 3.6 percentage points. Margin of error may be higher for reported results from subgroups

They didn't even have 700 people responding to it, if you will notice. Would you reject any survey done then? They conduct this type of survey every year, using methods that are generalyl agreed upon, certianly not unusual methods. I'd think that if you reject this survey then you'd have to reject almost all surveys and statistics in general no?




*Fixed Quote tag

[edit on 29-12-2004 by TrickmastertricK]

So give them a choice.

Deportation or firing squad....

Originally posted by ms_Bhavn
So give them a choice.

Deportation or firing squad....

The morons who think Muslims rights should be restricted?

Nygdan,
Yes I would reject all surveys that only include 700 people. Is that not just common sense?

Kriz_4

Sorry... I don't share your view on this subject. I've looked past my nose and even into the scene of the next 3-5 generations. I can't see christians and muslims getting along. Sure,for now.. in this country they are, because they are a minority. But if they become the majority.. how will christianity survive. I hope I am wrong. This country was founded by christians.. and many came here because of religious persecution and oppression. Some Islamic countries persecuted their own who converted to christianity. As their numbers grow I can only see a religious war.

What has history taught us!

Originally posted by Thorfinn Skullsplitter
I find it funny how muslims are todays enemy when christianity has been getting away with death and oppression for thousands of years and people are are ok with that. Maybe christians should be limited in their civil liberties...

Lets take away civil liberties off americans. They oppressed and killed 1.5 million vietmese. More then witches burned at the stake.

[edit on 2-1-2005 by Thinker]

Terrorism comes from the worst hate, worst humlation, worst revenge and barbic action.

Even saddam used terrorist tactices againist his rivals by killing family memembers. Saddam is also a terrorist. Mafia are also terrorists.

The common bank robber is also the same as saddam.

You find terrorists, in jail, hardcore crimnals, who have no problem kill inocent indivduals, or kill someone they don't like. When bank robber comes into a bank and threatens the life of bank employee because she won't give her the money. When the mafia, brutalli kills someone because they don't do what they say, triad gang memeber who threat the lives of shop employese who don't pay up.

Funny how bush isn't going after these terrorists.

Terrorist hates god and what he stands for and depises morality.

The reality the terrorist mentality, kills the inocent, threants the inocent, kills anyone they don't like, very barbaric, ransom's. Mentality of terrorists are found in drug, dealers dealers, traid memebers, crimnals, murderors.

Bush get the terrorists off american streets first.

Then again the white house is filled with immoral crimnals.

[edit on 2-1-2005 by Thinker]

[edit on 2-1-2005 by Thinker]

Ummm, Thinker...
I thought that is what law enforcement agencies (local, state, and federal) were for?



seekerof

Originally posted by Seekerof
Ummm, Thinker...
I thought that is what law enforcement agencies (local, state, and federal) were for?

seekerof

I don't see the mafia at guentno bay

Mafia, crimnals are terrorists. But laws don't apply to them? because they are american's? Bush and his imperialism and oil.

[edit on 2-1-2005 by Thinker]

Oh.....thanks for the 'clarification', cause you certainly neglected to mention Gitmo, etc. within the post I directed my comment at.





seekerof

Originally posted by Thorfinn Skullsplitter
I find it funny how muslims are todays enemy when christianity has been getting away with death and oppression for thousands of years and people are are ok with that. Maybe christians should be limited in their civil liberties...

how a sterotype gets advanced. one guy posts something, the other guy does the opposite, people fight.

the one being propagated, republicans are xtains. restricting the civil liberties of any group is ok by somebody (not u but somebody, so that u will accept it). coordinate group 44.

its like when u put two mirrors together. they reflect each other endlessly, this kind of news is the same thing.

It sickens me that a poll like this was even conducted, and disgusts me that people can actually agree to it.

So you want to restrict people�s rights simply because they are ethnically and religiously different to yourself? What�s next?

Make them wear armbands?
Boycott any Muslim stores?
Burn all they're books?
Deport them?
Put them in camps?
Gas them in chambers?
Burn them in ovens?
...

As for the religious differences, can't you just throw away pathetic religious fables and accept each-other as human beings?
Oh I forgot; a large portion of people aren't that smart yet.

Originally posted by Thorfinn Skullsplitter
Originally posted by alternateheaven

See (and I mean no offense to Thorfinn, he just said what I was really thinking) if the rest of the US took this attitude from the beginning all religious faiths would be under watch, because nobody is free from the bad marks of others upon their faith. Yet Christians walk around the nation relatively free and unoppressed so why shouldnt the rest of us have that same luxury?

I don't understand how christianity continues to get away with all of its wrong-doings, but it does. Wasn't Hitler a right-wing christian? Wouldn't that tell you something of the nature of those type of people? I think all religious groups who practice a religion that has a history of bloodshed should be watched to a certain degree.

[edit on 17-12-2004 by Thorfinn Skullsplitter]

Hitler was a CATHOLIC. Catholicism is not true Christianity.

Catholic teachings run contrary to the Bible. A fundamentalist Christian uses the Bible as his only authority.

And oh, BTW, the Bible forbids these little debacles such as Crusades, Inquisitions, and the like...it says to love your enemies, to do violence to no man, etc.

I wish people would take the time to educate themselves on what Christianity really is before they start slamming....

Hilter a cathloic lol.
Stalin was into budda.
The japanese emporor was into witchcraft.
Roosvelt was into scienetogy.
The englisj leader practiced pagan worship.

This war secular not religous.

The reality in the matter, these guys followed their own ideology no one else's.

Typical radical liberal bullsh!t... blah blah blah... bush SUCKS!.... blah blah blah... this is all bush's fault!!!... blah blah blah... he's not my president!!... conservatives are nazis!!!... blah blah blah... conservatives eat muslim babies

Originally posted by Amethyst

Originally posted by Thorfinn Skullsplitter
Originally posted by alternateheaven

See (and I mean no offense to Thorfinn, he just said what I was really thinking) if the rest of the US took this attitude from the beginning all religious faiths would be under watch, because nobody is free from the bad marks of others upon their faith. Yet Christians walk around the nation relatively free and unoppressed so why shouldnt the rest of us have that same luxury?

I don't understand how christianity continues to get away with all of its wrong-doings, but it does. Wasn't Hitler a right-wing christian? Wouldn't that tell you something of the nature of those type of people? I think all religious groups who practice a religion that has a history of bloodshed should be watched to a certain degree.

[edit on 17-12-2004 by Thorfinn Skullsplitter]

Hitler was a CATHOLIC. Catholicism is not true Christianity.

Catholic teachings run contrary to the Bible. A fundamentalist Christian uses the Bible as his only authority.

And oh, BTW, the Bible forbids these little debacles such as Crusades, Inquisitions, and the like...it says to love your enemies, to do violence to no man, etc.

I wish people would take the time to educate themselves on what Christianity really is before they start slamming....

What a moron. Where are you getting this from? It's not true Christianity, eh? It's been around for thousands of years and all other forms of christianity are variations of it . But yea, way to offend a lot of people, @sshole.

And oh, BTW, the KKK is protestant.

[edit on 2-1-2005 by serenitynow]

Originally posted by serenitynow

Originally posted by Amethyst

Originally posted by Thorfinn Skullsplitter
Originally posted by alternateheaven

See (and I mean no offense to Thorfinn, he just said what I was really thinking) if the rest of the US took this attitude from the beginning all religious faiths would be under watch, because nobody is free from the bad marks of others upon their faith. Yet Christians walk around the nation relatively free and unoppressed so why shouldnt the rest of us have that same luxury?

I don't understand how christianity continues to get away with all of its wrong-doings, but it does. Wasn't Hitler a right-wing christian? Wouldn't that tell you something of the nature of those type of people? I think all religious groups who practice a religion that has a history of bloodshed should be watched to a certain degree.

[edit on 17-12-2004 by Thorfinn Skullsplitter]

Hitler was a CATHOLIC. Catholicism is not true Christianity.

Catholic teachings run contrary to the Bible. A fundamentalist Christian uses the Bible as his only authority.

And oh, BTW, the Bible forbids these little debacles such as Crusades, Inquisitions, and the like...it says to love your enemies, to do violence to no man, etc.

I wish people would take the time to educate themselves on what Christianity really is before they start slamming....

What a moron. Where are you getting this from? It's not true Christianity, eh? It's been around for thousands of years and all other forms of christianity are variations of it

. But yea, way to offend a lot of people, @sshole.

And oh, BTW, the KKK is protestant.

[edit on 2-1-2005 by serenitynow]

Try www.chick.com... for starters.

Doesn't matter if it's been around for millions of years, either.

And if the truth offends, oh well. You'll have that. I'm just trying to tell people what's going on in this world. That's where being open-minded comes in.