The Ku Klux Klan (a confirmed terrorist group) was known to hold meetings in churches. Most of them (if not all) were protestant churches.
I think all right-thinking Americans know what to do.
Oh wait – the intended victims of said terrorism were also (mostly) protestant?
Ouch – my head hurts.
You can tell that I’m typing that text with contempt? How? Are you telepathic?
I think that’s his way of trying to change the subject so he doesn’t have to answer your question. 
While I have your attention, I didn’t know until tonight how young you are! All this time I thought you were in your 40’s or so.
I, personally, believe that ALL polls are cooked. I belive that their purpose is not to inform but to influence.
I do not believe that, even absent any alterior motive, you can tell what America thinks from the responses of 715 people who answered the phone and had nothing better to do.
His question was irrelevant. Civil rights are not contigent upon what somebody else in your own religious group does. The question itself is a hijack and a gutless attempt to change the subject.
I’d also like to know upon what you base your insulting accusation that I wamt to curtail rights for Christians. when in my entire posting history have I ever even suggested that wanted to do any such thing? I’m married to a Christian. My daughter is being raised as a Christian. Fuck you.
Because he’s read more than two of your posts.
Individuals in this country have the right to privacy. I don’t think it’s that much of a stretch to argue that you’re damaging the presumption of innocence when you begin surveillance on huge numbers of people with such tenuous grounds (they’re in a mosque, they might be up to something).
You don’t seem to know much about polls. You should take a stats class sometime. If the sample is truly random then even a few hundred respondants can be surprisingly accurate.
And the snipe about people “not having anything better to do” than answer a poll is a meaningless objection.
And all those Irish Catholics in the US who contributed all that money to the IRA prove that Catholics’ civil rights should be curtailed…
I often respond truthfully to polls and surveys. I’m curious to know what this entails about my IQ.
Fitzroy, you’re a cunt, and a hateful paranoid one at that. Stop shitting all over the Pit.
To the OP- Dio, I agree. It’s pretty scary that people like you and I who give a fuck about the rights of everyone-even fucking anti-abortionists like Abbie-get insulted and treated with contempt because our “hearts bleed for our muslim brethren”.
Damned straight. My heart bleeds for anyone who isn’t a lilly-white christian cracker ass right about now. That includes my dark-skin having, Star of David worshipping kike ass.
Fuck all of the hateful idiots.
Sam
As much as I hate to agree with Fitzroy, you’re wrong. The 44% did not explictily state that they would curtail civil rights for Muslims. That is an inference made by the author of the report, and a misleading one at that.
The first item would be blatantly discrimatory.
The second item - surveillance, I have no doubt is already being done. Personally, I think it’s a curtailment of civil rights, but I doubt that everyone shares this belief.
The third item, profiling, isn’t necessarily a curtailment of civil rights. Profiling is done all the time. That’s how law enforcement and security works - they watch for things that look suspicious. The only alternatives to profiling are detaining everyone, or selecting people at random to detain. If you have a bulge in your shirt when you go through airport security, they’re probably going to detain you, because you fit the profile of a possible smuggler. Profiling is only an issue when it’s based on race, gender, religion, and the like. I really don’t think the issue is closed, though. Many people feel that, if we are at war with a middle eastern country, that it’s expedient to profile middle eastern travelers. It’s certainly debatable if that’s a curtailment of civil rights, and it’s misleading to say that people who would allow profiling are “in favor of curtailing civil rights”, because they may not believe that it does so.
The fourth item - undercover surveillance, is in the same category as the second item. I suspect that it’s already being done all the time by the FBI and CIA. So obviously someone doesn’t think it curtails civil rights.
I’m as aghast as the next guy about the current political climate in this country, but I think the way you’re phrasing this is misleading, especially the thread title, which is just a blatant mischaracterization of the data.
I think that’s a reasonable position. However, I think we need to make a distinction between not believing that a certain action is a curtailment of civil rights, and saying you are in favor of curtailing civil rights. As an analogy, imagine that a right-wing religious paper does a survey of opinions on abortion rights. If they operate on the assumption that abortion is murder, and 60% of the respondents say they favor the right to an abortion, that doesn’t mean they can run a headline of “60% of Americans favor murder”.
This is indeed rather troubling. At the risk of Godwin-ing the thread, I wonder how many respondants would favour having all Muslims wearing yellow stars.
Yup. In this nation. Exactly. None of the terrorists who attacked us were American Muslims. However you’re willing to curtail their rights because they might be funneling money to terrorists. In exactly the same way churches here funneled money to the IRA. Exactly the same way.
Well…in their case it would have to be yellow moons. But if we did that, then we’d probably get the anti-gambling leagues to force jockeys to wear purple horseshoes and really, where would it end?
You’re right.
The problem is that all the media coverage on this is using the same misleading inference. I could get paranoid and speculate on why they would do that, but the most likely explanation is that they are lazy and/or sensationalist.
Unfortunately, I think most people will read it the way Dio has - but unlike Dio’s reaction of outrage - most people will see it as validation of the idea that discrimination is okay.
So maybe it’s still worth pitting.
The big problem with racial or religious profiling is that it doesn’t work. It casts too wide a net, creates a false sense of security, and alienates entire communities who might otherwise be valuable sources of intelligence.
This is disturbing. I especially thought the bit where highly religious people were more likely to see Islam as “dangerous” was disturbing. I hate to see this be a religious war type thing, and it seems pretty clear that the polarization is happening.
That said, I’d like to see the same questions asked about other groups and ethnicities and religions. I’ve got a theory that a lot of people are okay with curtailing civil rights in general, and the number that are only okay with getting down on Muslims is still unacceptable but probably less shocking.
All Muslim Americans should be required to register their whereabouts with the federal government.
Disagree.
Mosques should be closely monitored and surveilled by U.S. law enforcement agencies.
Agree. Not all Mosques naturally. Mosques frequented by Islamists and Islamists preachers. Islamism is a political movement as much a religion. Any political movement founded on a belief in violent revolution, be it Nazis, communists, Islamists or what have you not, should be kept close eye on.
U.S. government agencies should profile citizens as potential threats based on being Muslim or having Middle Eastern heritage.
Agree. Energy should be put to use where it statistically has the greatest pay off. It is a fact that at this time Muslims males from the Middle East are proportional more likely to be potentials threats than the average of the population. Like males are more likely to be potential threats than females. As far as this segment can be identified, relative more time & energy should be spend on it.
Muslim civic and volunteer organizations should be infiltrated by undercover law enforcement agents to keep watch on their activities and fundraising.
Agree. Any organization, Muslim or otherwise, that is suspected of having been involved in terrorist activity, such as funneling money, making propaganda material inciting violence, should, if possible, be surveyed and infiltrated.
Would all those who hold to the principle that people with nothing to hide shouldn’t fear being observed please post your names, addresses, and telephone numbers? Thanks.
Yes. As much as I mistrust so called “polls” on any issue, this is a reality. An other reality is that in combination with the fact that under the current climate, made into Law by your infamous Patriot Act, everyone who is “suspect” of whatever the US governments invents he can be “suspect” of that whatever the US government invents “endangers National Security”, can be picked up, transferred to ana animal cage and held there indefinitely without even having charge brought up against him.
Nice country really, the USA Today.
The witch hunt episode for the “Reds” and its aftermath became unworkable. Now you have the New Enemy and there it is: The witch hunt for the Muslims was created and is steadily growing.
As long as the US has an enemy, it feels good.
That is : The weapon industry, the military, the government instilling fear in the US citizens so that their crimes bacame acceptable and were even rewarded with re-election, feels good.
I have the solution: Forcibly export all the US Muslims to Islamic nations to export your “democracy” into nations who according to the hypocritical US arrogance have none and “must be teached” about it by the USA
(an in my thoughts I add here a few good sounding denigrating insults in Arabic.)
Salaam. A