http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/29 ... sts?page=7
Not only do half of US Muslims think criticism of their religion should be a crime, 40% want to be ruled by Sharia Law, not our Constitution.
One in five could not agree those who criticized Islam should be spared the death penalty.
Does anyone think this is not a problem?
Half of US Muslims: Criticism of Islam Should be a Crime
Moderator: Moderators
- East of Eden
- Under Suspension
- Posts: 7032
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
- Location: Albuquerque, NM
Half of US Muslims: Criticism of Islam Should be a Crime
Post #1"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE
Post #2
Are there any statistics of what percentage of Christians think criticism of Christianity should be a crime?
Without such data, we don't know if this is more of a problem than you'd have without said Muslims.
Without such data, we don't know if this is more of a problem than you'd have without said Muslims.
- East of Eden
- Under Suspension
- Posts: 7032
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
- Location: Albuquerque, NM
Post #3
Wow, that didn't take long to hijack into Christian-bashing. Wouldn't we also need the percentage of atheists who think criticism of atheism should be a crime? They were rather serious about that last century.LiamOS wrote: Are there any statistics of what percentage of Christians think criticism of Christianity should be a crime?
Without such data, we don't know if this is more of a problem than you'd have without said Muslims.
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE
Post #4
Interesting. This would seem to imply that you think the OP is Muslim-bashing, would it not? I asked nothing of Christians that you didn't ask of Muslims.East of Eden wrote:Wow, that didn't take long to hijack into Christian-bashing.
To be thorough, I suppose you would.East of Eden wrote:Wouldn't we also need the percentage of atheists who think criticism of atheism should be a crime?
However, my (implicit)point still stands:
Without knowing the number of people in any other religion, we cannot determine this to be a problem linked to Islam, or a problem at all, relative to the status quo.
From Muslims, to Christians, and then on to Atheists. I do wonder why you'd call me on thread hijacking and follow with that.East of Eden wrote:They[Atheists] were rather serious about that[Criminalising opposing opinion] last century.
Post #5
Great observation. I think what he's trying to say is "can we please have a conversation that isn't centered around making Christians out to be wild cannibals?"LiamOS wrote:Interesting. This would seem to imply that you think the OP is Muslim-bashing, would it not? I asked nothing of Christians that you didn't ask of Muslims.East of Eden wrote:Wow, that didn't take long to hijack into Christian-bashing.
Yah, actually I think we can. Mainly on account of the fact that Muslims motto is "convert or die". Every religion has had violent pasts (Atheists have killed the most though), but no one has been as fanatic about it as the Muslims. You'll be one of the first to go Liam, if the Muslims take over.To be thorough, I suppose you would.East of Eden wrote:Wouldn't we also need the percentage of atheists who think criticism of atheism should be a crime?
However, my (implicit)point still stands:
Without knowing the number of people in any other religion, we cannot determine this to be a problem linked to Islam, or a problem at all, relative to the status quo.
Just answer the question above please. You atheists are really terrible at that.From Muslims, to Christians, and then on to Atheists. I do wonder why you'd call me on thread hijacking and follow with that.East of Eden wrote:They[Atheists] were rather serious about that[Criminalising opposing opinion] last century.
“The word "good" has many meanings. For example, if a man were to shoot his grandmother at a range of five hundred yards, I should call him a good shot, but not necessarily a good man.�
G.K. Chesterton
Am I buggin' you? Don't mean ta' bug ya'!
Bono
I am Death. Vengeance is mine! God's fury rains down on you!
G.K. Chesterton
Am I buggin' you? Don't mean ta' bug ya'!
Bono
I am Death. Vengeance is mine! God's fury rains down on you!
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Post #6
I would like to see the actual Poll, who conducted it, what the methodlogy was.
World News Daily is not the most accurate source. They are well known for their very anti-Islamic stance too, as well as bigoted against other minorities.
Sorry.. but saying someone from WND said something is not... well backing up the claim very well.
World News Daily is not the most accurate source. They are well known for their very anti-Islamic stance too, as well as bigoted against other minorities.
Sorry.. but saying someone from WND said something is not... well backing up the claim very well.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella
- East of Eden
- Under Suspension
- Posts: 7032
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
- Location: Albuquerque, NM
Post #7
If that's what you call stating facts.LiamOS wrote:Interesting. This would seem to imply that you think the OP is Muslim-bashing, would it not?East of Eden wrote:Wow, that didn't take long to hijack into Christian-bashing.
And I asked nothing of atheists that you didn't ask of Christians.I asked nothing of Christians that you didn't ask of Muslims.
Ridiculous on the face of it. If your implication was correct that maybe half of Christians wanted to criminalize criticism, we would have known about it by now, being that we are a de facto Christian nation. Otherwise you'd be in jail, wouldn't you?However, my (implicit)point still stands:
Without knowing the number of people in any other religion, we cannot determine this to be a problem linked to Islam, or a problem at all, relative to the status quo.
Maybe you'd like to man up and do your own research on your question before we let that little hit and run slander pass.
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE
- East of Eden
- Under Suspension
- Posts: 7032
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
- Location: Albuquerque, NM
Post #8
http://www.wenzelstrategies.com/Goat wrote: I would like to see the actual Poll, who conducted it, what the methodlogy was.
Cite or retract.World News Daily is not the most accurate source. They are well known for their very anti-Islamic stance too,
Cite or retract.as well as bigoted against other minorities.
Ad hominem. Someone has to publish stories like this since much of the MSM doesn't have the integrity to do so.Sorry.. but saying someone from WND said something is not... well backing up the claim very well.
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE
- East of Eden
- Under Suspension
- Posts: 7032
- Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
- Location: Albuquerque, NM
Post #9
Just from past observation, there won't be any atheists addressing the OP. I guess they don't make them like Christopher Hitchens anymore.St. Anger wrote:Great observation. I think what he's trying to say is "can we please have a conversation that isn't centered around making Christians out to be wild cannibals?"LiamOS wrote:Interesting. This would seem to imply that you think the OP is Muslim-bashing, would it not? I asked nothing of Christians that you didn't ask of Muslims.East of Eden wrote:Wow, that didn't take long to hijack into Christian-bashing.Yah, actually I think we can. Mainly on account of the fact that Muslims motto is "convert or die". Every religion has had violent pasts (Atheists have killed the most though), but no one has been as fanatic about it as the Muslims. You'll be one of the first to go Liam, if the Muslims take over.To be thorough, I suppose you would.East of Eden wrote:Wouldn't we also need the percentage of atheists who think criticism of atheism should be a crime?
However, my (implicit)point still stands:
Without knowing the number of people in any other religion, we cannot determine this to be a problem linked to Islam, or a problem at all, relative to the status quo.Just answer the question above please. You atheists are really terrible at that.From Muslims, to Christians, and then on to Atheists. I do wonder why you'd call me on thread hijacking and follow with that.East of Eden wrote:They[Atheists] were rather serious about that[Criminalising opposing opinion] last century.
"We are fooling ourselves if we imagine that we can ever make the authentic Gospel popular......it is too simple in an age of rationalism; too narrow in an age of pluralism; too humiliating in an age of self-confidence; too demanding in an age of permissiveness; and too unpatriotic in an age of blind nationalism." Rev. John R.W. Stott, CBE
- Goat
- Site Supporter
- Posts: 24999
- Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 207 times
Post #10
[Replying to post 8 by East of Eden]
First, wenzel strategies
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2010/wenzel.html
and from http://www.plunderbund.com/2011/04/14/w ... n-to-sb-5/
As for anti-mulsim bias.. http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/fe ... seph_farah
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/08/2 ... in-forces/
http://blog.adl.org/civil-rights/former ... s-a-writer
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2012/10/2 ... tionalism/
On their reliability
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/i ... nuts-daily
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_World_Net_ ... ews_source
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2 ... iar08.html
First, wenzel strategies
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2010/wenzel.html
and from http://www.plunderbund.com/2011/04/14/w ... n-to-sb-5/
As we discussed at the time, Wenzel Strategies regularly polls for the fringe conservative website WorldNetDaily and advocates for the repeal of the 17th Amendment, which provides for the election of U.S Senators by the people. A reporter by trade, Wenzel learned the art of public opinion polling while at Zogby International, a polling outfit that is widely regarded as unreliable based on its unconventional polling methods and less than stellar track record in predicting races.
As for anti-mulsim bias.. http://theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/fe ... seph_farah
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2011/08/2 ... in-forces/
http://blog.adl.org/civil-rights/former ... s-a-writer
http://www.splcenter.org/blog/2012/10/2 ... tionalism/
On their reliability
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/i ... nuts-daily
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_World_Net_ ... ews_source
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/2 ... iar08.html
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�
Steven Novella
Steven Novella