NationStates Jolt Archive

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041218/ap_on_re_us/muslims_civil_liberties

That's really depressing.

9 out of 10 doctors believe the other one is an idiot.

Point?

Sorry be to so blunt. Especcialy about my own country. That is truly frightining.

Hmmmmmm

Isn't that rather.....nahhhh

I don't want to get into this......

9 out of 10 doctors believe the other one is an idiot.

Point?

I just thought you might like to know, is all. :(

I'd like more details about said study before commenting... what exactly was the question they asked?

Polling can be very very rigged depending on how you ask the questions...

(Just as an example)

"Do you favor tax cuts?" Almost everyone will say yes.... but if you ask
"Do you favor tax cuts at the expense of social welfare", the numbers will be a bit more evened out.

So, got any more details on this study?

So, got any more details on this study?

Unfortunately, I do not. :(

Well, if it is true, it is quite disturbing. But I have a gut feeling that these results are hyped up.

full report at
http://www.comm.cornell.edu/msrg/report1a.pdf

full report at
http://www.comm.cornell.edu/msrg/report1a.pdf

Thanks, I'll check it out.

It appears most of the people who were for it were either christian/right wing extremists(those two seem to go hand in hand oh, so easily) or listen too attentively to CNN's propaganda.

It appears most of the people who were for it were either christian/right wing extremists(those two seem to go hand in hand oh, so easily) or listen too attentively to CNN's propaganda.

...or just racists, or just idiots. :(

...or just racists, or just idiots. :(
Well, those types of people would fit the profile

Even tho I personally don't agree with Islam, I think that the idea of them being forced to register or be profiled or something is apalling. What business is it of the government to control peoples lives? This study gives us some scary thoughts. People should be free to live where they want without some government BS interfering in their lives.

I'd like more details about said study before commenting... what exactly was the question they asked?

Polling can be very very rigged depending on how you ask the questions...

(Just as an example)

"Do you favor tax cuts?" Almost everyone will say yes.... but if you ask
"Do you favor tax cuts at the expense of social welfare", the numbers will be a bit more evened out.

So, got any more details on this study?

From the article it looks like they polled less than 800 people. Sorry, out of 290,000,000 folks, that isn't a good enough sample. In fact, it is downright stupid if you consider it would mean polling less than 16 people per state.

Also, I noted the article said 22% favored the use of racial profiling to stop terrorists; yet islam is a religion and not an ethnicity. Sadly, however, I have to agree there: I'd rather see more people of arab heritage searched before going on planes than the current "random" searches we have. The last flight I took they made an ancient woman with a walker go behind a curtain for a search, yet me and my travelling companion barely had our papers looked at (and I was travelling with a arab/christian coworker who looks like a young bin Laden.) He thought it was silly himself, but wasn't about to say, "search me instead, please." Go figure.

Anyhow if their poll counted those 22% as restrciting civil rights, I really think the folks at Cornell were trying to load their survey. I can see the wording there: "Would you favor increased scrutiny on people of arabic heritage before boarding a flight?"

Typical of the folks there, though.

It appears most of the people who were for it were either christian/right wing extremists(those two seem to go hand in hand oh, so easily) or listen too attentively to CNN's propaganda.

CNN?
Naw, man. CNN= Clinton's News Network.
They always glorify the liberals

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041218/ap_on_re_us/muslims_civil_liberties

Yeah and do you know who most of those guys are? Your fellow Bush fans! I know who you support Roach-Busters. Yeah, if you think its the northerners, you are wrong, this isnt to say that everyone who lives in a red state will think this, and anyone who lives in a Blue state will think another thing, but it is usually the case.

CNN?
Naw, man. CNN= Clinton's News Network.
They always glorify the liberals

Do Americans get some sort of other CNN than the rest of the world? Because calling CNN "liberal" is just laughable if it's the same version I get...

That hurts

Despite my belief that democracy is the best government yet theorized by man, the title of this thread epitomizes why democracy is fundamentally flawed.

This was a poll conducted by students, who contacted a grand total of 715 people! And you're actually lending credence to it? Oh, get serious! Jeeze!

Do Americans get some sort of other CNN than the rest of the world? Because calling CNN "liberal" is just laughable if it's the same version I get...
This is the United States where Evolution is under serious fire and creationism is a credible theory.

Do Americans get some sort of other CNN than the rest of the world? Because calling CNN "liberal" is just laughable if it's the same version I get...
Oh, I couldn't agree more but it appears a lot of right wingers like to use oxymorons. Like liberal fascist. For one thing fascism is the polar oposite of true liberalism and, fascistic tendencies tend to be a more right winf trait.

This is the United States where Evolution is under serious fire and creationism is a credible theory.

God bless America!

Despite my belief that democracy is the best government yet theorized by man, the title of this thread epitomizes why democracy is fundamentally flawed.

Democracy depends on well informed citizens. If citizens get bad information you will get a bad democracy. That is why free speech and open debate is the heart of a true democracy.

You can take that any way you wish.

ooh ooh i know, lets round up all people of iddle eastern decent or of the muslim religion and put them in big pins in the middle of the desert like what we did during world war 2... oops wasnt suppsoed to mention that..

ooh ooh i know, lets round up all people of iddle eastern decent or of the muslim religion and put them in big pins in the middle of the desert like what we did during world war 2... oops wasnt suppsoed to mention that..

Shhhh...don't give Bush ideas!

ooh ooh i know, lets round up all people of iddle eastern decent or of the muslim religion and put them in big pins in the middle of the desert like what we did during world war 2... oops wasnt suppsoed to mention that..

And then we can can reparations seventy years later after most of them are dead [so we do not have to pay as many] and call it even!

If money brought back those poor Japanese, it can do anything! I for one think our flag should be green, the color of our bitch-goddess money.

Do Americans get some sort of other CNN than the rest of the world? Because calling CNN "liberal" is just laughable if it's the same version I get...

Don't forget, CNN was founded by a guy who donated a billion bucks to the UN.

This was a poll conducted by students, who contacted a grand total of 715 people! And you're actually lending credence to it? Oh, get serious! Jeeze!
http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

Knock yourself out.

Hey, CSW. :) Haven't seen you in awhile.

Hey, CSW. :) Haven't seen you in awhile.
I've been a wee bit busy lately. Haven't seen you in a bit either.

I've been a wee bit busy lately. Haven't seen you in a bit either.

So, how's it going?

God, why do I live in this country, that is truly depressing.

So, how's it going?
Fairly good, actually. Just the work has been piling up lately and I've been slacking too much. How about you?

From the article it looks like they polled less than 800 people. Sorry, out of 290,000,000 folks, that isn't a good enough sample. In fact, it is downright stupid if you consider it would mean polling less than 16 people per state.

so when are you going to go out and do your own studies and polls with some better polling techniques and sample sizes to contradict this stuff (and all the other scary polls that have come out about americans in general)? should be easy, right? and it'll show up all those "liberal elitists" too. so get to it.

Fairly good, actually. Just the work has been piling up lately and I've been slacking too much. How about you?

I'm fine, thanks. :)

http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm

Knock yourself out.
And this is suppose to do what? Convince me to accept a poll of miniscule size conducted by ( most likely left-leaning ) students? Nice try, but no cigar, dude. :D

in positive news, fully 50% of republicans are now in favor of allowing people to protest and 51% are ok with allowing people to criticize the government.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041218/ap_on_re_us/muslims_civil_liberties
44% of Americans who believe in taking away the civil rights of Muslim citizens, huh? well, that whole 44% is comprised of traitors, if that is the case, and all of them should be treated as such.

How very... American.

I'd like more details about said study before commenting... what exactly was the question they asked?

Polling can be very very rigged depending on how you ask the questions...

(Just as an example)

"Do you favor tax cuts?" Almost everyone will say yes.... but if you ask
"Do you favor tax cuts at the expense of social welfare", the numbers will be a bit more evened out.

So, got any more details on this study?
Why yes we do.
You make an excellent point by the way.

"About 27 percent of respondents said that all Muslim Americans should be required to register their location with the federal government, and 26 percent said they think that mosques should be closely monitored by U.S. law enforcement agencies. Twenty-nine percent agreed that undercover law enforcement agents should infiltrate Muslim civic and volunteer organizations, in order to keep tabs on their activities and fund raising. About 22 percent said the federal government should profile citizens as potential threats based on the fact that they are Muslim or have Middle Eastern heritage. In all, about 44 percent said they believe that some curtailment of civil liberties is necessary for Muslim Americans."

As in the paragraph above--the term curtail is used very loosely to describe a number of things i had hoped was already being done.
One:Profiling--When the FBI is looking for a serial killer they start by looking for White males, as statistically the white male age 25-40 is most probably the demographic of a serial killer--so what is so wrong about doing the same thing with terrorists--do a demographic study on plane hijackers then tell me we should be really suspicious of black guys from cleveland, or an IRish guy from the Southie area of Boston. Or and Austrailian of Moari heritage.
Profiling works.
Two: Civil infiltration--the FBI will do it to White Power groups, Black MIlitant groups, Why not these firebrand ISlamic Temples in large Muslim American communities.?
Three: Monitoring Mosques--in General no, however if the teachings inside are of the Anti-American variety, then yes.
Registration: i am registered with the State--my drivers liscence, it is illegal where I live not to have ID with up to date information on it, and to be in public with out it.
Register simply because of their religion...no, absolutely not. Unless they make everyone register.

How many were surveyed?

The Media and Society Research Group, in Cornell's Department of Communication, commissioned the poll, which was supervised by the Survey Research Institute, in Cornell's School of Industrial and Labor Relations. The results were based on 715 completed telephone interviews of respondents across the United States, and the poll has a margin of error of 3.6 percent.
Wow, 715 people.
14 people per state.
I would call that conclusive.

And this is suppose to do what? Convince me to accept a poll of miniscule size conducted by ( most likely left-leaning ) students? Nice try, but no cigar, dude. :D
More likely convince you that 715 sample size with a margin of error of 3.6 is rather accurate.


If you think that it is inaccurate, request the polling data and look at it yourself. Don't make silly assumptions.

in positive news, fully 50% of republicans are now in favor of allowing people to protest and 51% are ok with allowing people to criticize the government.

In related news, seventy-nine percent of Republicans voted for Bush because they thought he was connected to Anheuser-Busch, which they were also under the influence of during voting.

In related news, seventy-nine percent of Republicans voted for Bush because they thought he was connected to Anheuser-Busch, which they were also under the influence of during voting.

sadly enough, my stat was a real one, actually taken from this survey.

Now that really puts things into perspective. Americans are a lot more racist than I thought. Just when I was begining to think tolerance of foreigners was one of the few good things about the US, they had to throw that away, too.

Alas isn't it great to live in the land of the Free?

In related news, seventy-nine percent of Republicans voted for Bush because they thought he was connected to Anheuser-Busch, which they were also under the influence of during voting.
hey, i like a-h!
but anyway, eutrusca simply has problems accepting things that were created by people who do not completely trust the president who is obviously completely guided by jesus who obviously wants to destroy the muslim heathens who obviously are satan worshippers out to destroy all that is good and pure in the world which is completely limited to god fearing christians who would never conduct a poll for that is the work of the devil and the liberals and the muslims...

This again is a perfect reason to tell people that religion is once again interfering with state. This is going over the bounderies of "church seperated from state," one of the main reasons why this country was founded.

I'd like more details about said study before commenting... what exactly was the question they asked?

Polling can be very very rigged depending on how you ask the questions...

(Just as an example)

"Do you favor tax cuts?" Almost everyone will say yes.... but if you ask
"Do you favor tax cuts at the expense of social welfare", the numbers will be a bit more evened out.

So, got any more details on this study?
that is so very true...

Now that really puts things into perspective. Americans are a lot more racist than I thought. Just when I was begining to think tolerance of foreigners was one of the few good things about the US, they had to throw that away, too. Ummm, 700 some odd people took this survey. That is nothing. We don't think this way...

That's really depressing.

Yes, it means that all that crap about me being in the top .1% of the country isn't saying much, :p

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041218/ap_on_re_us/muslims_civil_liberties

Oh wonderful. You know what this means? Every american who wants to restict liberties of muslims wants to really to round up everyone who has his orgins in a predomanantly Muslim nation likewise of the religion they practice or the nation they were actually born in, since in America Persian=Arab and Arab=Muslim... What a great nation!

sadly enough, my stat was a real one, actually taken from this survey.

Mine is too. ;)

On a serious note, that is pretty sad...

[Edit]Even I must admit this survey is pretty biased.

Even I must admit this survey is pretty biased.

define 'biased'

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041218/ap_on_re_us/muslims_civil_liberties

65% of Frenchmen agree! (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_30-8-2004_pg4_1)

Sad...


"Sweet land of liberty..."

Roach, aren't you supposed to make some sort of comment instead of just cutting and pasting stories, MKULTRA style?

Mhmm... land of the free.

...

96% percent of the people in my school want to see my rights restricted, since I'm so disliked. I don't see that happening anytime soon though, and neither do I see this occurring. It's a poll of only 715 people, so it's essentially worthless, in my mind.

It's a poll of only 715 people, so it's essentially worthless, in my mind.
You'd be surprised dude.. if it was a decent valid sample (and I'm not saying it was) 715 people is a fairly good number.

Oh, I know that. But considering who all was interviewed, which was mainly Republicans, it's still incredibly useless. A much better sample would have been to sample an equal number of left-winged and right-winged people.

Lets put it this way, If I were to see a study done like this on pubmed in the field of medicine I would take it with a grain of salt. It looks more like a study that one would see with a nutraceutical product.

1: Small sample size. If your looking at 300M total population or ~130M who voted. ~800 is not going to cut it. (they were not exactly clear who qualified to be studied. Just people over 18? Actual voters, registered voters ect)

In the 2004 the only polls worth looking at were the ones with greater then 1000 participants. This even with multiple polls being taken by multiple people on consecutive days.

Lets examine this statement in the article

The*survey*was*conducted*between*October*25*and*November*23,*2004;*it*consists*of*715*interviews*fro m*a*national*listed*household*sample.*The*response*rate*was*25.7%*and*the*cooperation*rate*54.5%,*me asured*according*to*AAPOR*standards.

A: Roughly a month to do this poll. This is a very bad sign. Normaly you should only poll over 2 days 3 at the most. Anything longer then that and you are fishing for data.

B: They are not too clear but a a response rate of 25% is very poor and would be enough to invalidate the study right their. To put that into context to have let me give you the AAPOR def for responce rate and cooperation rates

Response rates - The number of complete interviews with reporting units
divided by the number of eligible reporting units in the sample.

So of the 715 people interviewed only 183 of the people completed all the question (or in some cases more then half the questions +1 depending on how strict they defined a responder again this information is not provided to us)

Cooperation rates - The proportion of all cases interviewed of all eligible
units ever contacted.

This means that the contacted 1312 people who were eligible and could have participated, but only took 715. Why were the other people not included, why such a high rate? Were the rates higher on some days then others, states, ect. None of this data is provided. If they don't come out and tell you that means that they were fishing for the "right" people.

When you have drop out rates this high and have people excluded from the study that meet the inclusion criteria, its bad news for your study.

Anywho I could pick at this some more, but I have to pick at the the APC cancer trial....

It's official. Americans can no longer call their country the "land of the free".

Don't you see that you're moving more towards being a fascist theocracy every day?

Yeah and do you know who most of those guys are? Your fellow Bush fans! I know who you support Roach-Busters.
Roach-Busters is anti-Bush, fool!

65% of Frenchmen agree! (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_30-8-2004_pg4_1)
Yeah, it's disturbing how Islamophobic French people are becoming these days.

Oh, I know that. But considering who all was interviewed, which was mainly Republicans, it's still incredibly useless. A much better sample would have been to sample an equal number of left-winged and right-winged people.

But if there is an unequal number of left and right winged people in america your suggestion would be skewed also.

but anyway, eutrusca simply has problems accepting things that were created by people who do not completely trust the president who is obviously completely guided by jesus who obviously wants to destroy the muslim heathens who obviously are satan worshippers out to destroy all that is good and pure in the world which is completely limited to god fearing christians who would never conduct a poll for that is the work of the devil and the liberals and the muslims...

Hope you're being sarcastic.

You'd be surprised dude.. if it was a decent valid sample (and I'm not saying it was) 715 people is a fairly good number.

Yes CSW produced nice confidence interval stuff.

BUT he forgot, it assumes an even unbiased polling technique.

Republicans may be more likely to awnser a questionaire.

Or stupid people might. Or people who hat muslims. It doesnt account for that.

In short, it isnt a good number, CSW overlooked something there, as it is based on a simple assumption that is almost certainly wrong.

EDIT: and yes that "work of the devil" stuff oozed sarcasm, but I dont blame you for not being sure, this is a very diverse forum. Makes it both infuriating and educational/interesting though.

Sad, but no surprising. 44% (or more) of most groups generally consists of idiots, or those aspiring to become idiots.

I think my brother said it best a few years ago with when he made this statement:
"The average person is educated, but people as a whole are stupid."

hey, i like a-h!
but anyway, eutrusca simply has problems accepting things that were created by people who do not completely trust the president who is obviously completely guided by jesus who obviously wants to destroy the muslim heathens who obviously are satan worshippers out to destroy all that is good and pure in the world which is completely limited to god fearing christians who would never conduct a poll for that is the work of the devil and the liberals and the muslims...
ROFLMAO!!! You have obviuosly not bothered to find out anything about me before indulging in personal attacks based upon your own bigotry.

Even tho I personally don't agree with Islam, I think that the idea of them being forced to register or be profiled or something is apalling. What business is it of the government to control peoples lives? This study gives us some scary thoughts. People should be free to live where they want without some government BS interfering in their lives.

Oh, freedoms. Here in social democratic Scandinavia it is a part of everyday life that goverment control people. It really is their job and here there aren't much people criticising it.

I'm even willing to fight, with arms if necessary, to keep Europe safe from Islamic invasion. Too bad our continent will soon be one big Eurabia.

Oh, freedoms. Here in social democratic Scandinavia it is a part of everyday life that goverment control people. It really is their job and here there aren't much people criticising it.

I'm even willing to fight, with arms if necessary, to keep Europe safe from Islamic invasion. Too bad our continent will soon be one big Eurabia.
I know that Sweden and Norway are strong welfare states, but is that the same as "goverment controlling people"?

I don't think there is going to be a Muslim invasion. Europe does, however, having a serious problem with integrating Muslim populations. We need to educate them away from religious fundamentalism and towards our enlightened, tolerant thinking. I think that the French are doing it all wrong though.

Isnt there supposed to be an ammendment that says freedom of religion? This country is truely falling back to the middle ages.

That's pretty lame.

65% of Frenchmen agree! (http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_30-8-2004_pg4_1)
Bull. 65% of the voters agree with the ban on religouse items displayed in public schools and buildings. Thats not the same.

Yeah, it's disturbing how Islamophobic French people are becoming these days.
"These days"??? The French have hundreds of years of history being Arabian- and African-unfriendly. It started with 'exploration', turned into colonialism, and has translated into neo-colonialist economic and social practices today. Anti-Islam sentiments are one small by-product of this entrenched attitude.

"These days"??? The French have hundreds of years of history being Arabian- and African-unfriendly. It started with 'exploration', turned into colonialism, and has translated into neo-colonialist economic and social practices today. Anti-Islam sentiments are one small by-product of this entrenched attitude.
Then again they also have centuries of history with muslims on their southern borders trying to do exactly the same with the French.

Oh, freedoms. Here in social democratic Scandinavia it is a part of everyday life that goverment control people. It really is their job and here there aren't much people criticising it.

I'm even willing to fight, with arms if necessary, to keep Europe safe from Islamic invasion. Too bad our continent will soon be one big Eurabia.


Control people? How? And who are you going to fight?

He's just some stupid nazi, not everyone thinks like that in Finland.

The title of this thread, and of the news reporting of the poll is misleading in that it is too broad and vague. For instance, I believe every single person's rights should be restricted. I must be some evil bad person, right? No, I just don't believe in the rights of murder, thievery, plagiarism, etc.

Looking at the poll, the only really disturbing thing was the 25% or somesuch thinking that Muslim-Americans should be required to register with the Federal government their current location. That's kind of scary, although really everyone registers in the form of the IRS--but still...

The bit about profiling is unfair. My girlfriend is constantly (for some odd reason) pulled aside at the airports, although she weights like 85 freakin' pounds and is 5' 2". That's just silly.

The infiltration of Islamic charities is also not that bad of a thing. They've already been doing this, and have busted several for contributions to terrorist organizations, and frozen their assets. This is not that outlandish of a thing. The Feds generally infiltrate a lot of organizations, and see where their money is going to. It's a fact that millioins of dollars from non-profit U.S. organizations have been filtered to Middle-Eastern 'charities' that give out money to suicide bombers' families and aid al-Qaeda. Of course, I think the U.S. has been pretty successful in shutting down these organizations, so I don't know how much more Big Brother-esque watching is required.

I believe every single person's rights should be restricted. I must be some evil bad person, right?
Yes. You must be a liberal, communist treehugging atheist.

Re: Discriminating against Muslims/Arabs in general (I would hope someone else has already said this and I just failed to notice, but, ... ).

What exactly do you think that's going to do?

It won't improve security, it won't deter people from joining Al Qaeda, it won't help the police find terrorists.

What it will do is alienate the one group that is in a position to supply the police with any intelligence on Al Qaeda activity, and increase the number of Al Qaeda recruits.

You want to destroy your enemy by making them your friend, not destroy your friend by making them your enemy, it's not pacifist crap, it's practical law enforcement, you can not police a community that you're at war with (you can try, but you'll get your ass kicked), if you want to detect terrorist activity, you need those in a position to hear about it on your side, and that means being on theirs, or you will fail.

Tell your government not to be so fucking stupid if they want to be re-elected, make sure they do things that will ACTUALLY work.

You want to destroy your enemy by making them your friend
Yep. Thats what the US is trying to do with Europe.

So. I see nothing wrong with this. Keep you friends close keep you enemies closer. When in war civil rights come second.

Bull. 65% of the voters agree with the ban on religouse items displayed in public schools and buildings. Thats not the same.

Of course, French voters fail to see the difference between "displayed in public schools and buildings" and "worn by an *individual* who in no way represents the beliefs of the state."

So. I see nothing wrong with this. Keep you friends close keep you enemies closer. When in war civil rights come second.
no, we arnt in war. no one declared war but george bush, and he declared that over over a year ago. if everytime we decide to go and blow something up we are in war, why bother saying we even have civil rights

new poll results stangely similaar two the other polls resuts hmmm...
44% of americans are morons

no, we arnt in war. no one declared war but george bush, and he declared that over over a year ago. if everytime we decide to go and blow something up we are in war, why bother saying we even have civil rights
Yes indeed it was. Islamic fascist declared war on the west more than thirty years ago. Under the Carter and Reagan administrations.

Of course, French voters fail to see the difference between "displayed in public schools and buildings" and "worn by an *individual* who in no way represents the beliefs of the state."
And you know how for a fact this is true for these 65%?

And you know how for a fact this is true for these 65%?

If they voted for the idiotic ban on individuals having any evidence of their religion showing, then yes.

If they voted for the idiotic ban on individuals having any evidence of their religion showing, then yes.
You do realise that the ban wasn't up for vote?

You do realise that the ban wasn't up for vote?

Voted for/approved of.

Voted for/approved of.
It wasn't voted for by the public.

On October 23, 1983 at 6:22 a.m., a large delivery truck drove to the Beirut International Airport where the Marine Barracks was located.

After turning onto an access road leading to the compound, the driver rushed through a barbed-wire fence, passed between two sentry posts, crashed through the gate, and slammed into the lobby of the barracks.

The driver detonated explosives with the power equal to more than 12,000 pounds of TNT. The explosion crumbled the four-story building, crushing service members to death while they were sleeping.

The terrorist attack killed 220 Marines and 21 other U.S. service members who were stationed there to help keep the peace in a nation torn by war.

Do you not call that an act of war?

Do you not call that an act of war?
What does that have to do with any of this?

It wasn't voted for by the public.

THe poll linked to said that 65% approved of it. What part of that do you not understand?

WHether there was actually a vote is irrelevant.

THe poll linked to said that 65% approved of it. What part of that do you not understand?

WHether there was actually a vote is irrelevant.
The part where a ban on religiouse items, Jewish and Christian and others included, displayed in public schools and buildings is Islamophobic.

no, we arnt in war. no one declared war but george bush, and he declared that over over a year ago. if everytime we decide to go and blow something up we are in war, why bother saying we even have civil rights

The part where a ban on religiouse items, Jewish and Christian and others included, displayed in public schools and buildings is Islamophobic.

THere are two points you fail to see here.

(a) I never said it was "Islamophobic." The French are apparently phobic of religion in general.

(b) THe ban affects Muslims much more than any other group and was targetted at them, although it was veiled to be equal.

-- THe *point* was that there is a big difference between a public school displaying a religious item and an *individual* wearing something that sorta kinda has to do with their religion. THe French apparently fail to see the very obvious difference here. --

Here's the thing. If a Muslim is insulted, the Christians are attacked. Evolution is brought up, gay marriage is brought up, Jerry Falwell is brought up, and every bad thing Christians have ever done is brought up all the way back to the Inquisition. No, Christians might not be perfect people, but I fail to see how attacking them over and over again on a message board is different from a poll indicating that 44% of Americans (less than half of whom are religious) would support curtailing rights of Muslim citizens. The fact of the matter is that those of you who say "Christians are biggotted racist sleezebags who just want something to whine about," are no better than those that you attack. So it might be in your best interests to come down off your mountain of righteousness and instead of causing the problems help to solve them. Thanks.

Here's the thing. If a Muslim is insulted, the Christians are attacked. Evolution is brought up, gay marriage is brought up, Jerry Falwell is brought up, and every bad thing Christians have ever done is brought up all the way back to the Inquisition. No, Christians might not be perfect people, but I fail to see how attacking them over and over again on a message board is different from a poll indicating that 44% of Americans (less than half of whom are religious) would support curtailing rights of Muslim citizens. The fact of the matter is that those of you who say "Christians are biggotted racist sleezebags who just want something to whine about," are no better than those that you attack. So it might be in your best interests to come down off your mountain of righteousness and instead of causing the problems help to solve them. Thanks.

Good point. Only some of the warmongrels are christians, rest are just generally stupid.

*sigh*

:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Anyway ... ok .... so 44% out of 800 people ... guess I can live with that.

Bull. 65% of the voters agree with the ban on religouse items displayed in public schools and buildings. Thats not the same.

It's a restriction of rights, isn't it? They're prohibiting the free exercise of religion by Muslims.

It's a restriction of rights, isn't it? They're prohibiting the free exercise of religion by Muslims.
Are they closing mosques? No.
Are they burning the Koran? No.
Have they passed laws which makes Islam illegal? No.
They just banned religouse items from public, state owned, schools and buildings. Which makes sense as there is a strict seperation of church and state.

On October 23, 1983 at 6:22 a.m., a large delivery truck drove to the Beirut International Airport where the Marine Barracks was located.

After turning onto an access road leading to the compound, the driver rushed through a barbed-wire fence, passed between two sentry posts, crashed through the gate, and slammed into the lobby of the barracks.

The driver detonated explosives with the power equal to more than 12,000 pounds of TNT. The explosion crumbled the four-story building, crushing service members to death while they were sleeping.

The terrorist attack killed 220 Marines and 21 other U.S. service members who were stationed there to help keep the peace in a nation torn by war.

Do you not call that an act of war?

They did?

*goes off and asks a Muslim friend of mine*

Nope, she says you're wrong. Learn the diffence between a terrorist group and a religion.

Are they closing mosques? No.
Are they burning the Koran? No.
Have they passed laws which makes Islam illegal? No.
They just banned religouse items from public, state owned, schools and buildings. Which makes sense as there is a strict seperation of church and state.

So if their religion says to wear scarf and coutry bans it, its just bad luck?

So if their religion says to wear scarf and coutry bans it, its just bad luck?
headscarves are a cultural thing, not a religious thing. i know muslim girls who don't wear them...

So. I see nothing wrong with this. Keep you friends close keep you enemies closer. When in war civil rights come second.Don't be so reactionary. The Muslims aren't our enemies.

When it comes time to curtail your civil rights and send you off to prison without evidence or a trial or a lawyer, I guess you'll be ok with that.

They did?

*goes off and asks a Muslim friend of mine*

Nope, she says you're wrong. Learn the diffence between a terrorist group and a religion.
Bam!

headscarves are a cultural thing, not a religious thing. i know muslim girls who don't wear them...

*I* am a Muslim, and I believe the decision to wear, or not to wear, a veil should be made by the woman herself, without any pressure exerted on her by any other person for whatever reason.. But you're right, many Muslim women do not wear veils.

I have to tell you, however, that you are wrong. It is a religious thing. Islam asks women to cover their hair, their bosoms, and their bodies.

All that said, I still refuse to take sides when it comes to the French decision to ban 'religious' icons from being worn in public schools.

Islam asks women to cover their hair, their bosoms, and their bodies.
Are you referring to modern Islamic culture/traditions, or the original teachings of Muhammed?

That hurtsYou could always blow them up or something, Cole.[/most politically-incorrect and racist comment ever]

Don't be so reactionary. The Muslims aren't our enemies.

When it comes time to curtail your civil rights and send you off to prison without evidence or a trial or a lawyer, I guess you'll be ok with that.

When they came for the jews, I wasn't jewish...

God, why do I live in this country, that is truly depressing.

I don't know. Why? If you are truly this unhappy, you should move. It's not good to suppress your desires in this way.

Seriously, please have some perspective. A minority in the poll want to monitor or restrict Muslims. 44% is LESS THAN HALF. We do have a constitution that protects minorities from the majority. It's power to do so has gradually improved over the years.

It's not hard to understand the minority's point of view. Many no doubt also answered another question in this study that they believed a new terrorist attack was likely. So, they are scared. Fear makes for irrational thought.

By the way, you would probably get a much stronger majority if you asked Muslims in a Muslim country if they wanted to restrict the rights of Christians. Oh yeah, I forgot, in many Moslem countries Christians can't worship. Christians are subject to attack and are constantly persecuted for trying to convert Muslims, when the proselytizing nature of Islam is as pronounced as it is under Christianity. And, many in Islam believe if one can't be converted, they are fair game for death.

So. I see nothing wrong with this. Keep you friends close keep you enemies closer. When in war civil rights come second.
Nothing wrong, except for the fact that it's fundamentally unAmerican.

Interestingly:

Almost all terrorists are muslim,
but not all muslims are terrorists

Are you referring to modern Islamic culture/traditions, or the original teachings of Muhammed?

It's in Qur'an. Men and women are supposed to be modest and not flashy in their dress outside the home. When travelling abroad (ie. when not in the company of Muslims), women are supposed to cover their hair.

Anyway, the quote is thus:

24.30-31 "Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: And Allah is well acquainted with all that they do. And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss. "

well then, those 44% are (fortuneately) in the minority. Go 56% of the rest!

Interestingly:

Almost all terrorists are muslim,
but not all muslims are terrorists
Timothy McVeigh was a muslim now?

*I* am a Muslim, and I believe the decision to wear, or not to wear, a veil should be made by the woman herself, without any pressure exerted on her by any other person for whatever reason.. But you're right, many Muslim women do not wear veils.

I have to tell you, however, that you are wrong. It is a religious thing. Islam asks women to cover their hair, their bosoms, and their bodies.

All that said, I still refuse to take sides when it comes to the French decision to ban 'religious' icons from being worn in public schools.
the bible also asks women to cover their hair, how many christian women follow that anymore?

this one girl i knew was from czechoslovakia (her parents left when it was one country...) and her mom, grandmother et c didn't wear headscarves, so it wasn't just being born in canada that made it so she didn't want to wear a headscarf. if i'm not mistaken, it's a modesty thing. showing your hair isn't immodest. and from what i've heard, a lot of this stems from previous traditions in now muslim nations that demanded that women wear headscarves.

Interestingly:

Almost all terrorists are muslim,
but not all muslims are terrorists


even more interesting, most terrorists in the u.s. are neo-nazis or other right-wing groups. these typically claim to be christian.

It's in Qur'an. Men and women are supposed to be modest and not flashy in their dress outside the home. When travelling abroad (ie. when not in the company of Muslims), women are supposed to cover their hair.

Anyway, the quote is thus:

24.30-31 "Say to the believing men that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty: that will make for greater purity for them: And Allah is well acquainted with all that they do. And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss. "
where does it say to cover the hair in here?

i see something that says to cover the bosom... last i checked, the head wasn't exactly placed right between the breasts.

this basically says not to be all flashy and ornamental, so no excessive jewlry and the like, and to cover your sexual areas... i'm guessing cleavage could be grouped in with bosom, but it says nothing about covering the hair, unless i missed that... and i don't see how that's possible.

The cause of this topic proves just how stupid and controllable Americans can be.

First off, Americans are neither stupid nor controllable. Second, what does a poll showing less than half of Americans supporting a curtailment of civil liberties have to do with either of those things? Please, refrain from posting unless you have some valid point to back up your argument.

The cause of this topic proves just how stupid and controllable Americans can be.

Islamophobia is not a uniquely American phenomenon.

They just banned religouse items from public, state owned, schools and buildings. Which makes sense as there is a strict seperation of church and state.

Allowing an *individual* to wear something related to their religion IN NO WAY WHATSOEVER infringes upon the separation of church and state unless that individual is a direct representative of the state itself. Students are not.

First off, Americans are neither stupid nor controllable. Second, what does a poll showing less than half of Americans supporting a curtailment of civil liberties have to do with either of those things? Please, refrain from posting unless you have some valid point to back up your argument.

44% is *much* too high. If it were 5%, it would be an acceptable number of idiots. Nearly half is not acceptable.

I agree that it is much too high, but any intolerance is much to high. I think we should be greatful that they're still in the minority.

So if their religion says to wear scarf and coutry bans it, its just bad luck?
Yep. Cause they always tell us it's their choice to wear it. It's not a required to wear them. Thats what the muzzi's keep repeating on nearly every talkshow or interview about the headscarf thing. It's not a sign of opression but a personal choice. So, since it's not required to wear I don't see why they are making such a big deal out of having to remove it for a few hours to go to school.

Yep. Cause they always tell us it's their choice to wear it. It's not a required to wear them. Thats what the muzzi's keep repeating on nearly every talkshow or interview about the headscarf thing. It's not a sign of opression but a personal choice. So, since it's not required to wear I don't see why they are making such a big deal out of having to remove it for a few hours to go to school.

Damn right.

Either they are good citizens, and simply OBEY without back-talk.
Or they are seditious rebels...
*points to Gitmo*

World has again one reason to dislike Americans...

Why, oh Why!!? Why!!!? *echoing screams from here to eternity*

Cornell student researchers questioned 715 people in the nationwide telephone poll conducted this fall. The margin of error was 3.6 percentage points.

Yikes ... um I know decresing sample size vs population but wow only 715 with a lmost a 4 percent margin of error

I would hate to see the confidence level on that survey

The confidence level is 95 percent.

This means that if you poll 715 people out of 290 million, your results will be accurate within a range of plus/minus 3.6 percent 95 percent of the time. I love how people are contesting the statistical basis of this poll (which is sound) rather than its alarming results. Because, obviously, they're more on the ball when it comes to polling than a group of professional statisticians at a crummy school like Cornell.

Most polls are conducted within this range. Gallup and USA Today and similar outfits usually only hit in the 800-1,200 participant range in their national surveys. Are they always accurate? No, but 95% of the time, they're within their predicted range. If you get up to 1,200 participants, then you'll get to 99% confidence for 290 million.

So, best case scenario, only 40.4 percent of Americans are assholes.

Timothy McVeigh was a muslim now?

Although it cannot be said that "all Muslims are terrorists", it can be said that nearly 80 percent of the world's terrorist activities are carried out by people who identify themselves as Muslims.

Of these, the vast majority embrace Wahhabism. The statement is often made today that while not all Wahhabi believers are suicide bombers, all suicide bombers are Wahhabi.

Now, as to the non-Muslim percentage, let's not forget that McVeigh was about 10 years ago. And he didn't sit in the truck when it went up.

Currently, within the US, most non-Muslim acts that might be counted as "terrorism" are carried out by animal rights extremists. The acts in those cases are largely property crimes (arson, theft, vandalism, freeing of animals), so it's not even in the same league as the sorts of acts we usually associate with terrorism.

hmmm, I was Just thinking, everyone thinks that muslims are terrorists, im from canada, and no offence to anyone person, but If i had the chance, I'd shoot a missle at bush or the CIA, just because well, as a whole, you guys are EXTREMELY stupid and west wing, and everyone up here really hates that, and ya, only reason we arnt is because were allied with you guys.

hmmm, I was Just thinking, everyone thinks that muslims are terrorists, im from canada, and no offence to anyone person, but If i had the chance, I'd shoot a missle at bush or the CIA, just because well, as a whole, you guys are EXTREMELY stupid and west wing, and everyone up here really hates that, and ya, only reason we arnt is because were allied with you guys.

Ya, well I hate the show "The West Wing" too.

The confidence level is 95 percent.

This means that if you poll 715 people out of 290 million, your results will be accurate within a range of plus/minus 3.6 percent 95 percent of the time. I love how people are contesting the statistical basis of this poll (which is sound) rather than its alarming results. Because, obviously, they're more on the ball when it comes to polling than a group of professional statisticians at a crummy school like Cornell.

Most polls are conducted within this range. Gallup and USA Today and similar outfits usually only hit in the 800-1,200 participant range in their national surveys. Are they always accurate? No, but 95% of the time, they're within their predicted range. If you get up to 1,200 participants, then you'll get to 99% confidence for 290 million.

So, best case scenario, only 40.4 percent of Americans are assholes.


where was the 95 percent ? Or did I miss the stated confidence level

Those are probabilities based on only very small groups of people polled. I really doubt that 44% agree they should be "restricted." Many Americans, I'd say more than 44%, would say that profiling Arabs (because someone could be Anglo and a Muslim, like Cat Stevens) more than other people is acceptable, as do I. Of course almost all Muslims are peaceful, loving people, but the extremists trying to kill us happen to be Arab-Muslims more than 98% of the time, and the peaceful bunch should understand and share in our concern and go along with it so that we can catch the real enemies.

Confidence interval and confidence level are kind of a sliding scale. The narrower the interval, the lower the confidence level. The higher the confidence level, the broader the interval becomes.

Cornell gives us a 3.6 percent confidence interval. Run that with the 715 sample, you get a 95 percent confidence level. Also, 95 percent is the standard used by most surveys.

The SSW calculator CSW provides is a good link for this stuff.

As in the paragraph above--the term curtail is used very loosely to describe a number of things i had hoped was already being done.
One:Profiling--When the FBI is looking for a serial killer they start by looking for White males, as statistically the white male age 25-40 is most probably the demographic of a serial killer--so what is so wrong about doing the same thing with terrorists--do a demographic study on plane hijackers then tell me we should be really suspicious of black guys from cleveland, or an IRish guy from the Southie area of Boston. Or and Austrailian of Moari heritage.
Profiling works.
Two: Civil infiltration--the FBI will do it to White Power groups, Black MIlitant groups, Why not these firebrand ISlamic Temples in large Muslim American communities.?
Three: Monitoring Mosques--in General no, however if the teachings inside are of the Anti-American variety, then yes.
Registration: i am registered with the State--my drivers liscence, it is illegal where I live not to have ID with up to date information on it, and to be in public with out it.
Register simply because of their religion...no, absolutely not. Unless they make everyone register.

You have some points that I must say I agree with.

Oh wonderful. You know what this means? Every american who wants to restict liberties of muslims wants to really to round up everyone who has his orgins in a predomanantly Muslim nation likewise of the religion they practice or the nation they were actually born in, since in America Persian=Arab and Arab=Muslim... What a great nation!

Don't I know it!!! I'm Iraqi, but my family is part of the 3% of Iraqi's who are Christian or Catholic. You don't know how many times it's happened to me...If I say I'm Iraqi, it's automatically assumed i'm muslim. If I say I'm arab, it's automatically assumed i'm muslim. It's fuckin bullshit!!!!

Confidence interval and confidence level are kind of a sliding scale. The narrower the interval, the lower the confidence level. The higher the confidence level, the broader the interval becomes.

Cornell gives us a 3.6 percent confidence interval. Run that with the 715 sample, you get a 95 percent confidence level. Also, 95 percent is the standard used by most surveys.

The SSW calculator CSW provides is a good link for this stuff.
(psst I know what confidence level is ... stats major)

And psst confidence level is not directly related to population size so there can be no direct correlation calculation

So lets take a large sample size (+30) so we are using z scores
One tailed … Right calculation …

But it is futile because they don’t give the mean …


Anyways sorry babbling

Moral of the story they don’t report confidence level … and direct calculation off of population size is not accurate …

(by the way http://psych.colorado.edu/~mcclella/java/normal/normz.html has a great graphical z score calculator)

So fine, we'll take it as a total and meaningless coincidence that 1) 95% confidence is an accepted standard and 2) when you inaccurately calculate off population alone, 741 out of 290 million yields a 3.6% interval at 95%. Maybe they're 26 participants short, but signs point toward 95% confidence. And nothing personal, I'm sure you're good at what you do, but I'm inclined to go with Cornell here rather than some random objections in a forum.

So fine, we'll take it as a total and meaningless coincidence that 1) 95% confidence is an accepted standard and 2) when you inaccurately calculate off population alone, 741 out of 290 million yields a 3.6% interval at 95%. Maybe they're 26 participants short, but signs point toward 95% confidence. And nothing personal, I'm sure you're good at what you do, but I'm inclined to go with Cornell here rather than some random objections in a forum.

I think the problem with asking question like those in a poll is that you really have no idea if the people are making an informed answer, or merely expressing an emotional opinion.

Most people polled have little understanding of what they're being questioned about. I remember the famous poll about the SALT II treaty years ago. About 2/3 of the people were against it. Then they filtered out the 85 percent of the people who had no idea what was in the treaty, and the poll flipped completely the other way.

Hey, Gun, I think we have the same damn problem when people go to the polls. They might not be informed when they answer the phone and they might not be informed when they vote, but they still influence policy.

Hey, Gun, I think we have the same damn problem when people go to the polls. They might not be informed when they answer the phone and they might not be informed when they vote, but they still influence policy.

Yes, the problem was noted by Samuel Clemens long ago.

Yes, the problem was noted by Samuel Clemens long ago.
And he was anti-imperialist!