Apparently the spirit of religious tolerance and acceptance in America, as protected by the First Amendment, does not apply to all. Did it really ever apply?
So my questions are directed towards those who may find themselves within that 44 percent: How do you justify your opinion? How do you reconcile your opinion with the First Amendment and the long history of tolerance and acceptance towards others in this country? Do today’s circumstances mean we should make a fundamental shift in our attitudes and beliefs, as codied by the Constitution? Please explain your compassionate conservatism in light of the survey? Now that we are dividing ourselves in America between Muslim vs non-Muslim, do you have any other divisions which should be considered as well?
And if you associate yourself with the highly religious, as a Republican and/or both, and you disagree with the survey, do you plan to speak out against this divisive attitude? Or will you remain quiet and allow this attitude to grow and foster?
First, it’s always hard to critique the results of a survey without seeing the survey itself, which the link does not reference-- it doesn’t give the actual survey questions.
Second, assuming the results to be at least roughly accurate, this isn’t too surprising. Many Americans aren’t really famailiar with the details of the Bill of Rights, or other rights in the constitution, and will often trade off liberties for security even if it’s THEIR OWN liberties. And that’s one reason the founders, wisely, made it very hard to change the constitution. If it were easy, there’s a good chance we’d have whittled away our liberties long ago.
Lots of people tend to think “if you haven’t done anything wrong, you have nothing to hide”.
Wow a surprising and groundbreaking discovery that is. I am so shocked by it that… awee, f* it, I’m going out for a smoke. This country blows. The saddest thing is that the GOOD side of this is that all of 56% of the country doesn’t want to religiously persecute a minority group. That means some GOPies aren’t on the party bandwagon. Hm.
Yet, it is this very mindset you write about that seems to have taken deep roots in America. At what point will Americans realize their mistaken belief? Will they realize it at all? I cannot carry on a pen debate (for the sake of the debate) among many conservative friends anymore because they are adament in their beliefs that they cannot never be wrong.
“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” — James Madison
“A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right.” — Thomas Paine
“Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” — Benjamin Franklin
Sure it did, at the bottom of the page. You just have to copy it into your address bar to get to the Cornell site: link to Cornell
The article there links to pdf’s of the survey reports.
My bad. I didn’t see a blue link, so I assumed there wasn’t one.
Duckster: I take heart in the idea that people are blusterous about what they think the government should be able to do when their talking to their friends or even taking a survey, but are more thoughtful when acutally voting. We seem to have done pretty good in keep our civil liberties over these years, even if there have been the occasionaly backslip.
Of course, maybe I’m too optimistic given CA voters approved an initiative in the last election allowing the government to take DNA evidence for a law enforcement database from anyone charged with certain crimes-- not convicted, charged.
What a sad commentary this survey makes on America. But should we be surprised? The United States gave up the moral high ground long ago. Invading a soverign nation under false pretenses, committing acts of torture, restricting civil liberties, using napalm on civilians, etc. Why should we be surprised that the people are following their government’s lead?
My PDF engine is broken so I can’t open the poll. Are those the questions? If so then count me in the 44%. This has zip to do with religious freedom. As far as I’m concerned you are free to hope for 72 virgins & believe the earth is flat and dinosaurs are Jesus-Horses, but if you are engaged in terrorism or help people engaged in terrorism you can stick your religion up your ass, because it is no shield for vigilance. Tell me what is so special about religion that it should get a free pass? Anyway it’s clear that Islamists do not have this clear distinction between “religion” and “politics”.
I consider surveying and infiltrating of Islamists “charity” organizations and Mosques on par with surveying of any other organised crime group or potential violent political terrorist organization. As the The Mob, Hells Angles, Clan groups, the US Militia movement, of the kind that the Oklahoma bomber also was a member of at some time, or neo Nazi groupings. Absolutely necessary police work – and nothing to do with religion.
Question one, include the “all” (“All Muslim Americans”)Question two and four do not. This I interpret as meaning that they in question two and four meant “some”. All Muslim Americans should be required to register their whereabouts with the federal government.
Completely unacceptable of course.
[Some] mosques should be closely monitored and surveilled by U.S. law enforcement agencies.
Well of course they should. Those that has a history of preaching violence and from which terrorists has emerged.
[Some] muslim civic and volunteer organizations should be infiltrated by undercover law enforcement agents to keep watch on their activities and fundraising.
Well of course they should. Those organizations that are under suspicion of funneling money to Hamas and the like.
Notice how the survey leaves no room to differentiate between Jihadists and other peaceful Muslims. I suspect the survey is more reflective of the political belief of the creators of the survey and what political message they intended to insert into the debate, that of the American population as a whole.
would the liberals who are so anxious to protect Muslims resent it if the FBI sent a few undercover agents into right-wing Christian groups who are planning to bomb abortion clinics?
Freedom of Speech has well-recognized limits: it does not include the unlimited right to indulge in hate speech or to incite a riot.
Freedom of Religion also has limits: it does not include the right to call for military jihad, or to preach martydom with a reward of 77 virgins for murdering innocent people.
The problem is that jihad is a not a minor part of Islam that only attracts fanatics,(the way abortion bombing is a minor part of Christianity).
Most Americans would be willing to deny religious freedom for Catholics too --IF today’s Catholic church was calling for military attacks on unbelievers and burning heretics at the stake (like in the middle ages)
Rune said it above --this isn’t an issue of religious freedom.
It’s a question of law enforcemen
Various times you’ve called the Americans criminals and liars or stupid, so what if a majority think the same about your people. Ever heard the phrase ‘you get more flies with Honey rather than Vinegar’
Of course things sound more reasonable when you add the probable cause modifier. But the questions don’e have that modifier. The question doesn’t say “Mosques suspected of harboring, training, or supporting terrorists should be closely monitored…”, it says “Mosques should be closely monitored…” Adding “some” to the beginning of the questions changes their meaning entierly. If anything, these questions should begin with “all” or “most.”
That depends on two factors: What is the scope of the operation, and why is it being done. Are only a small number of groups being watched, or are all Christians being monitored? Does the FBI have any evidence that these right-wing groups are planning to bomb abortion clinics, or are the investigations done entirely because these groups are Christian? The former may be justified (depending on the evidence presented), but the latter is not, and that is what is being discussed in this survey. Liberals aren’t saying that Muslims should have immunity to all laws, they’re saying that we need probable cause before we investigate them, just like everybody else.
Not to speak for Rune, but my answer to that would be: That’s exactly why this “study” is less meaningful. Those particular questions do NOT include the qualifier “All” (nor do they include “some”), and thus the question is open to interpretation. If you interpret it as “All” you will think that the results indicate that X% of people believe that ALL mosques. . ., when in reality some (many? all? you don’t really know, do you?) people made their response using the “some” qualifier.
What? How many muslim-americans are there, and how many have committed an act of jihad? Do the math and come back with a percentage that justifies your statement.
This I agree with, which is why I’ll say again that racial/religious profiling simply doesn’t work:
It casts too wide a net - if you’ve done the math above you can easily see that.
It creates a false sense of security - just because most terrorists have fit X profile does not mean they will continue to do so, or always do so. Remember the Lockerbie?
Also, it alienates an entire community of people. Which not only serves as recruitment for more terrorists, but makes people who might otherwise be allies less likely to volunteer valuable intelligence.
You’re correct that this was a sloppy poll, but it’s no secret that a large percentage of people would have no problem curtailing civil rights in general. I don’t know that there’d be a significant change in the results regardless of what qualifier was used.
Even allowing that, these responces still indicate that 26% of Americans that a majority, or at least a large minority, of mosques need to be monitored. This is still worrisome.
That is your interpretation of the results. As you yourself pointed out (the concept of what you pointed out, not the wording), the question does not say “A majority of mosques need to be monitored…” or “A large minority of mosques need to be monitored…” It says “Mosques need to be monitored…” As I said, you may interpret this as meaning “All” or “A large minority” or “A majority,” but it is your interpretation, and not supported by the actual question asked.
I maintain that the question, in the form it was asked, is entirely too vague to determine how many Americans feel ALL mosques need to be monitored, and how many feel that SOME need to be monitored, since that was not qualified in the question.
Do you think anything other than what I’ve listed so far (all to large minority) is a reasonable interpretation of the question? My point is that by adding “some” to the question, you’ve all-but-guaranteed that the statement is true (in the sense that you can find at least two members of any large enough population that have almost any trait). I don’t think that “0.005% of Muslims are terrorists” and “Muslims are terrorists” mean the same thing.
I would imagine that most who don’t believe that any significant number of mosques need to be monitored answered no to the question. So my guess would be that around 70% believe that some (as defined by Rune) mosques should be monitored.