Half of US Muslims: Criticism of Islam Should be a Crime

Two hot topics for the price of one

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
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

Post by East of Eden »

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?
"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

User avatar
LiamOS
Site Supporter
Posts: 3645
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:52 pm
Location: Ireland

Post #2

Post by LiamOS »

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.

User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post #3

Post by East of Eden »

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.
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.
"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

User avatar
LiamOS
Site Supporter
Posts: 3645
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2010 4:52 pm
Location: Ireland

Post #4

Post by LiamOS »

East of Eden wrote:Wow, that didn't take long to hijack into Christian-bashing.
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:Wouldn't we also need the percentage of atheists who think criticism of atheism should be a crime?
To be thorough, I suppose you would.

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.
East of Eden wrote:They[Atheists] were rather serious about that[Criminalising opposing opinion] last century.
From Muslims, to Christians, and then on to Atheists. I do wonder why you'd call me on thread hijacking and follow with that.

User avatar
St. Anger
Apprentice
Posts: 124
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2012 11:49 am
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #5

Post by St. Anger »

LiamOS wrote:
East of Eden wrote:Wow, that didn't take long to hijack into Christian-bashing.
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.
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?"
East of Eden wrote:Wouldn't we also need the percentage of atheists who think criticism of atheism should be a crime?
To be thorough, I suppose you would.

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.
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.
East of Eden wrote:They[Atheists] were rather serious about that[Criminalising opposing opinion] last century.
From Muslims, to Christians, and then on to Atheists. I do wonder why you'd call me on thread hijacking and follow with that.
Just answer the question above please. You atheists are really terrible at that.
“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!

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #6

Post by Goat »

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.
“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

User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post #7

Post by East of Eden »

LiamOS wrote:
East of Eden wrote:Wow, that didn't take long to hijack into Christian-bashing.
Interesting. This would seem to imply that you think the OP is Muslim-bashing, would it not?
If that's what you call stating facts.
I asked nothing of Christians that you didn't ask of Muslims.
And I asked nothing of atheists that you didn't ask of Christians.
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.
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?

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

User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post #8

Post by East of Eden »

Goat wrote: I would like to see the actual Poll, who conducted it, what the methodlogy was.
http://www.wenzelstrategies.com/
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.
Cite or retract.
Sorry.. but saying someone from WND said something is not... well backing up the claim very well.
Ad hominem. Someone has to publish stories like this since much of the MSM doesn't have the integrity to do so.
"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

User avatar
East of Eden
Under Suspension
Posts: 7032
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 11:25 pm
Location: Albuquerque, NM

Post #9

Post by East of Eden »

St. Anger wrote:
LiamOS wrote:
East of Eden wrote:Wow, that didn't take long to hijack into Christian-bashing.
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.
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?"
East of Eden wrote:Wouldn't we also need the percentage of atheists who think criticism of atheism should be a crime?
To be thorough, I suppose you would.

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.
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.
East of Eden wrote:They[Atheists] were rather serious about that[Criminalising opposing opinion] last century.
From Muslims, to Christians, and then on to Atheists. I do wonder why you'd call me on thread hijacking and follow with that.
Just answer the question above please. You atheists are really terrible at that.
Just from past observation, there won't be any atheists addressing the OP. I guess they don't make them like Christopher Hitchens anymore.
"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

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #10

Post by Goat »

[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 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

Post Reply