Cite? (not because I disbelieve you, but because I’m very curious)
To save a bunch of scrolling, it shows that 36% of evangelical Christians (and also Mormons) believe homosexuality should be accepted by society; 48% of protestants in general; and 45% of Muslim Americans. So Muslim Americans are significantly more accepting of homosexuality than evangelical Christians and Mormons (in America), and nearly as accepting as protestant Americans.
Atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, and Jews top the list in terms of accepting homosexuality, at 94%, 94%, 88%, and 81%, respectively, while Jehovah’s Witnesses, evangelical Christians, and Mormons are at the bottom with 16%, 36%, and 36% respectively.
Thanks, and thanks for the summary. Beat by the JW’s, I never saw that coming 
Are you referring to the discussion between Maher and Rose in 2014 at a big round wood table? In that discussion Maher linked all Muslims to the violent extremists by pointing out that the foundations of the extremists beliefs are found in the foundations of the Islam, which is true, but Rose pointed out that most Muslims do not follow the extremists’ interpretation and are not terrorists.
What Maher has done is to commit the fallacy of defective induction. He assumes that the sample he uses (the violent religious extremists) are representative of the general population simply because they have the same religion. Since his argument is logically invalid (defective induction), and is also factually untrue (Rose), his conclusion that Muslims do not assimilate well is unfounded.
BTW, Canada brought in 25,000 Syrian refugees last year. When compared on a per capita basis with the Syrian refugees taken in by the USA last year, that’s 24:1, so given the general similarities between Canada and the USA, one would expect the result of so many more Syrian refugees ending up in Canada than the USA, both relatively and absolutely, would be a good indicator of how they would fair in the USA, barring subatantial American biggotry as is being trumpeted by a significant portion of USA citizens.
Guess what the result in Canada has been? Muslims are thriving and eagerly adapting to their new home, and we’re OK with them joining us. Unless there is something exceptional about the USA that makes it toxic to Muslims (which I fear that there is), one can reasonably expect that they would thrive in the USA too (and I submit that they do thrive there despite the [del]late[/del] present unpleasantness). Have a look at this Statistics Canada survey designed and conducted by Environics. Positive assimilation while retaining religious/cultural identity is how I would sum it up, which is what Canada is aboat.
To be fair, we have had a serious terrorist attack, only despite what Fox said and despite Trump using it to justify his proactive actions against Muslims, the terrorist wasn’t a Muslim immigrant. The terrorist was a pure laine Québecois nationalist who is a fan of Le Pen and Le Donald, who executed six Muslims and seriously injured many others while they were praying at their Mosque the morning after your Donald, as part of his ongoing attacks on Muslims, banned entry to the USA by people from seven primarily Muslim nations. Your leader is a stochastic terrorist with innocent Muslim blood on his hands. I very much wish that Trump would stop encouraging terrorism, particularly when it seeps into my country and kills my fellow citizens.
Of course that is just one example, and one example does not a sample make, so I encourage you to take a good hard look at terrorist attacks in the USA over the last decade. Here is your Deparatment of Homeland Security funded Global Terrorism Database. Yes, in the USA Islamic based terrorism is more frequent than non-Islamic based terrorism, so of course Islamic terrorism and non-islamic terrorism both need to be addresed, but let’s put things in perspective.
Aside from the 2001-09-11 attacks by al-Qaeda, terrorism in the USA is not a significant problem. For example, in 2014 there were 63 fatalities in the USA from Islamic and non-Islamic terrorist attacks (with the San Bernardino Islamic attack murdering the most people: 16). In that same time period, there were 33,736 firearms deaths according to your CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics, which is substantially similar to your motor vehicle death rate and uttery unrelatable to any other first world gun death rates. 33,736 gun deaths to 63 terrorist attacks including both Islamic and non-Islamic terrorist attacks: your gun death rate is 535 times higher than your terrorist attack death rate. It’s about time you get your priorities straight and start dealing with your ongoing own home-grown bloodbath that has little to do with terrorism, let alone Islamic terrorism.
I suggest you do a cost-benefit analysis. Doctors are credited with increasing average life expectancy by about five years. About 50,000 physicians in the USA are Muslims, who can then be credited with increasing the total number of years that people in the USA live by 250,000 years, which when which when averaged over a forty year career, comes to an aggregate average of 6,250 lives saved each year. You should thank your lucky stars for such people.
Here’s the cost-benefit: an aggregate average of 6,250 lives saved each year by Muslim doctors in the USA, verses an average of 13 lives lost to terrorism (both Islamic and non-Islamic) post-9/11, or if you wish to include the extraordinary 2001 attack, an average of 163 lives lost per year to terrorism (both Islamic and non-Islamic). Either way, the benefit of 6,250 lives saved each year far outweighs the loss of 13 or 163 lives lost per year to terrorism of which Islamic terrorism is the plurality.
And those are just the doctors. Muslims participate in all facets of life and immeasurably contribute to the USA. Your fascist leadership is cutting off your nose to spite your face through its ongoing hatred of Muslims.
Okay. Now I ’ m confused. Some people hate Muslims for not following what the aforementioned people say Muslims follow and also hate them for not assimilating (whatever that really means) when immigrants of any flavor are prevented from assmilating. Who’s writing the script for those folks, Trump?
I concur, however, she wants to be certain it is OK by Allah, and for that she requires the assurance of an Imam that Surah Al-Baqarah - 221 - Quran.com and Surah Al-Mumtahanah - 10 - Quran.com do not mean what they appear to mean, namely that marriage to a non-Muslim man is haram. That she knows people who are OK with it, that some of her sisters are OK with it, and that her own devout adult daughters are OK with it, is not enough for her to risk the fire. Only an Imam will do to quell her concern, but the most common interpretation is that it is indeed haram (she has consulted over half a dozen), with enlightened dissenters that she reads of but does not have any direct contact being few and far between, and even then usually dodging with the equivalent of “yeh, well, whatever,” e.g. Tariq Ramadan: “I would naturally prefer someone to share the principles of being a Muslim. But it’s their choice. Look, by then, I will have done what I have had to do [as a father]. I have transmitted my principles to them. So I say to them, know who you are and your values. When you know this, then you are free.”
I’m English, we don’t have a fascist leadership (no matter how you misuse the word). Since the attacks on 9/11 the Muslim population in Britain doubled in the following 10 years. The truly liberal Muslim (a lot of Muslims would claim he’s not a Muslim) Maajid Nawaz has spoken at great length about the “Muslim communities unique set of challenges” and has pointed out that 14.4% of those in prison are Muslims - a rise of 122% over the same period. It’s a similar situation in Europe.
“Liberals” can’t seem to grasp, it’s not just about terrorists. Not being a terrorist doesn’t make them moderate. There are other forms of Islamic extremism.
Hey Jefferson, England is a geographically small country, so perhaps you can help me out. Where is the location “Eating pig with the Prophet Mohammed”, and what does it mean?
Bolding mine.
That word doesn’t mean what I think you think it means.
Rather then get into it here, please justify your statement in The Pit thread “Let’s welcome our newest bigot”.
It’s interesting to compare this with my country, South Africa.
The first mosque was built in Cape Town in 1794, and Muslims have been established here ever since. There has never been any friction or problem in over two centuries, and there still isn’t today. There were always racial issues, but never religious or cultural issues.
In the streets and shops in Cape Town you will often see Muslim women wearing hijabs, and occasionally men wearing long white robes. Nobody raises an eyebrow.
Muslims tend to stick to their own areas, and have their own culture - but then so do many other groups here, from Hindus to religious Jews, to Portuguese and Chinese.
Muslim culture is not an problem, and there has never been any particular friction between Muslims and other groups. Islamic terrorism and extremism is a non-issue here.
In your haste to save us the time of scrolling you left out a large number of Christians such as Catholics at 58%.
According to the cite you gave, the total number of Christians who think homosexuality should be accepted by society is 54% versus 45% of Muslims. That would make American Christians significantly more accepting than Muslims.
None of this disputes anything I said. Yes, American Christians as a whole are more accepting of homosexuality than American Muslims, and American Muslims are more accepting of homosexuality than the subgroups of Christians (JW, Mormons, and evangelicals) that I mentioned.
And yet in England Muslims are far more likely to be the victims of sectarian violence than the perpetrators. There are other forms of extremism as well.